Editors’ Note: The Supreme Court’s Jevic ruling last spring remains a treasure trove of bankruptcy theory, suitable for the novice bankruptcy student and highly instructional for those of us who have practiced in chapter 11 for years. We at The Bankruptcy Cave like it so much that we will be offering a few more posts in upcoming weeks on the lower courts’ interpretation of Jevic since the spring, the continued efforts in Delaware to sidestep Jevic, and other important learning from the case.

El Tribunal Supremo reitera, en su sentencia de 5 de mayo de 2017, su doctrina relativa a la acción individual de responsabilidad de los administradores y la necesidad de que además de probarse el daño se demuestre la existencia de una conducta del administrador, ilegal o carente de la diligencia de un ordenador empresario, así como la existencia del nexo causal entre la conducta y el daño.

Overview

El Tribunal Supremo desestima, en su sentencia de 13 de marzo de 2017, el recurso de casación presentado por una sociedad en concurso de acreedores que pretendía el pago por parte de una sociedad a la que había transmitido ciertos activos durante el concurso, de la cantidad que se acordó retener por las partes en concepto de gastos a cargo del vendedor, argumentando que no se admite en sede de concurso la compensación de créditos (ex. art. 58 LC, que proscribe la compensación de los créditos concursales).

El Tribunal Supremo confirma que la atribución de un privilegio especial, en caso de créditos garantizados con prenda sobre derechos de crédito futuros, depende de que la relación de la que emana el crédito ofrecido en garantía existiera antes de la declaración de concurso.

Last December, we updated you that the Supreme Court was considering whether to grant review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our original post is here. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted review of Village at Lakeridge, but only as to one question presented, the most boring one in our view.

Dishonest plaintiffs can make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to successfully move for summary judgment. Indeed, a dishonest plaintiff who understands the legal landscape can easily defeat summary judgment by claiming that there exists “direct evidence” of discrimination in the form of an admission by management that the challenged employment action was motivated by discriminatory animus (e.g., “my supervisor told me he was firing me because of my age”).

Editor’s Note: On June 16, 2016, The Bankruptcy Cave gave you our previous summary of the controversial Sabine decision.

As we have noted in another post, Non-Final Finality: Does One Interlocutory Issue Resolved in a Bankruptcy Court Order Render All Issues Addressed in the Order Non-Appealable?, not all orders in bankruptcy cases are immediately appealable as a matter of right. Only those orders deemed sufficiently “final” may be appealed without additional court authorization.

We are all very used to (and very bored of) the on-going debate of what actually constitutes “the media” or “legitimate news.” In most instances, this sort of debate pits exclusive, Columbia-educated, “proper” journalists against those who have large on-line followings and eschew any association with a Dickensian-era newspaper.