Desde hace ya tiempo la Administración Tributaria ha venido aplicando, si bien no de forma frecuente, el sistema de responsabilidades regulado en la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria (en adelante LGT), en los supuestos en los que el deudor a la Hacienda Pública se encontraba en situación de concurso. 

La reciente Sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del TS de 15 de diciembre de 2017 se pronuncia sobre el criterio temporal de aplicación del Real Decreto-Ley 6/2013, para la protección de los créditos adquiridos por la SAREB frente a una eventual subordinación. Según el Tribunal Supremo, si la calificación del crédito era definitiva antes de la entrada en vigor de la norma, no puede modificarse posteriormente.

On March 5, 2018 the United State Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in U.S. Bank NA v. The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), answering the narrow question of what is the proper standard of review for appellate courts in reviewing a bankruptcy court’s determination of non-statutory insider status.

La Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo ha dictado recientemente una sentencia (STS 693/2017, de 20 de diciembre) que, si bien trae causa de un procedimiento concursal, establece conclusiones muy interesantes desde el punto de vista del derecho societario, en materia de conflictos de interés en el seno de los grupos de sociedades.

La Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo reconoce legitimación para interponer recursos al acreedor coadyuvante en un incidente concursal de acción de reintegración.

On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. The key issue in the case was the scope of Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code which insulates certain transactions from a bankruptcy trustee’s statutory avoidance powers. A bankruptcy trustee may avoid many types of pre-petition transfers, including preferential payments made to creditors within 90 days of a bankruptcy petition and transfers made for less than reasonably equivalent value completed within two years of a bankruptcy filing.

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Old Cold LLC (In re Old Cold LLC), 879 F.3d 376 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit held that a sale in possible violation of the Supreme Court’s Jevic decision does not allow an appellate court to examine the merits of the sale when the sale-approval order otherwise is statutorily moot under section 363(m).

LA DGRN limita el control por notarios y registradores de la aplicación del 160.f) LSC (venta de activos esenciales) y establece que la norma no será aplicable en operaciones realizadas por las sociedades en liquidación.

Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark has seemingly split with the Second Circuit and held that the safe harbor in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not bar fraudulent transfer claims brought on behalf of creditors under state law, ratifying a June 2016 opinion from Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross.

In bankruptcy, one of the “powers” granted to a trustee is the ability to undo previously completed transactions in order to facilitate payments to creditors. However, the Bankruptcy Code prevents a trustee from unwinding certain types of transactions. The safe harbor provision of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) protects financial institutions performing securities transactions from having to disgorge payments initially made by a now bankrupt company.