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.

On June 8, 2017, Clifford J. White III, director of the U.S. Trustee Program(“UST Program”)[1], proclaimed before a congressional subcommittee that “debtors with assets or income derived from marijuana may not proceed through the bankruptcy system.”

This decision is significant to debt collectors and debt buyers who, according to the dissent, “have ‘deluge[d]’ the bankruptcy courts with claims ‘on debts deemed unenforceable under state statutes of limitations.’”

Introduction

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.

It is fair to say that not many, if any, banks have internal controls or policies and procedures to identify and mitigate deficiencies in the bankruptcy practices of banks. Indeed, banks typically rely on their Legal Department or external counsel to make sure banks protect their interests when bank customers file bankruptcy. While the Compliance Department and the Risk Management Department track compliance and risks related to numerous laws, rules and regulations, the Bankruptcy Code and its rules are typically not among those laws and rules.

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding, 580 U.S. __(2017), decided on March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling reverses the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.

The immediate effect of Jevic will be that practitioners may no longer structure dismissals in any manner that deviates from the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of impaired creditors.

In its recent decision in Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others [2017] SGHC 38, the Singapore High Court held that the security interests of lenders survived the commingling of assets, and that the assets should be divided among the secured lenders in proportion to their respective contributions.

Facts