Fulltext Search

El Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº10 de Barcelona, del pasado 29 de julio, ha permitido el nombramiento de un administrador antes del concurso para facilitar la venta de la unidad productiva antes de la declaración de concurso. Con ello, se ha permitido una medida equivalente al “pre-pack” anglosajón, favoreciendo una liquidación más eficiente y evitando incrementar el pasivo de la concursada.

In a decision of first impression entered on June 3, 2020, a Chicago bankruptcy court (“Court”) held that a restaurant tenant was excused from paying a significant portion of its rent under the force majeure provisions of its lease because of the governor’s executive order prohibiting in-house dining during the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] This decision is highly significant for landlords and tenants whose ability to service their clients has similarly been restricted by government orders.

La jurisprudencia de la Sala de lo Civil del TS avala, con ciertos límites, las cláusulas de los convenios de acreedores en las que se prevé la pérdida del crédito de los acreedores que no comuniquen en un plazo determinado su número de cuenta bancaria. Una reciente sentencia de 2019 ha matizado el alcance tradicional de esta doctrina.

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied “Colorado law to resolve” the question of “who owns the federal tax refund.” Id., at *2.

Nos acercamos a los 100 días de la pandemia que ha sacudido nuestro modo de vivir y trabajar y ha llevado nuestra economía a una situación de crisis cuya profundidad y extensión están aún por definir pero se esperan muy amplias.

Liberado el segundo tramo de la lnea ICO de avales para paliar los efectos econmicos del COVID-19, aprobada por el Real Decreto-ley 8/2020 (RDL 8/2020), se discute an estos das sobre la compatibilidad de estas garantas con operaciones de refinanciacin y reestructuracin de deuda.

En concreto, se plantean dudas que se concretan en tres momentos temporales:

La Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado se pronunció en esta resolución sobre la posibilidad de que el nombramiento del representante persona física de una sociedad nombrada administradora se realice a través de un apoderado de ésta, sobre la necesidad de que conste la aceptación del representante persona física y sobre la naturaleza de esta figura.

A bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction was “not a final and immediately appealable order,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Dec. 10, 2019. In re Alcor Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 6716420, 4 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2019). The court declined to “exercise [its] discretion” under 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3) to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id., citing 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3926.1 (3d ed. 2017) (“There is no provision for appeal as of right from an injunction order of a bankruptcy judge to the district court.”).

A creditor’s “later-in-time reclamation demand is ‘subject to’ [a lender’s] prior rights as a secured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020. In re HHGregg, Inc., 2020 WL 628268 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020). And “[w]hen a lender insists on collateral, it expects the collateral to be worth something,” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020, when rejecting a guarantor’s “novel reading” of his security agreement. In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 2020 WL 628542 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020).

Lender repossesses the equipment of its business borrower after it defaults on its secured loan agreement. Because borrower needs the equipment to run its business, it then files a Chapter 11 petition and promptly asks lender to return the equipment. Lender refuses because the equipment secures the defaulted loan. Depending on where the debtor sought bankruptcy relief (e.g., New York or New Jersey), lender may be subject to sanctions for holding on to the equipment.