Spanish Insolvency Law 16/2022

Introducción

Este mes las resoluciones reseñadas son menos y de menor relevancia que el mes pasado. Destacamos en todo caso el auto de homologación de uno de los primeros planes de restructuración aprobados tras la entrada en vigor de la nueva ley 16/2022 con una peculiar formación de clases donde muchas de ellas son clases unipersonales.

También destacamos un auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil número 3 de Gijón que niega el embargo preventivo de los bienes de los administradores de la concursada por no apreciarse que vaya a existir un déficit concursal.

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved confusion in the lower courts over the scope and application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which prohibits debtors from discharging debt through bankruptcy when such debt was obtained as a result of fraudulent actions.

An administration is intended to achieve one of two objectives: 1. to rescue the company as a going concern; or 2. to achieve a better result for the company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company was placed into liquidation

Introducción

Esta edición tiene esta vez bastante contenido interesante entre el que destacamos:

Background to this overview

The below overview is deemed to be a high-level overview providing the general outlines of the legal Luxembourg framework applicable to the members of the management board in private limited liability companies (sociétés à responsabilité limitée) (an “SARL”) in times of financial distress.

1. My tenant is in administration, do they have to pay the full rent and is the administrator personally liable?

The company in administration has to pay rent as an administration expense for each day that the company occupies or uses the property for the benefit of the administration. The administrator is not personally liable, but the rent is payable as a priority expense ahead of the administrator's fees.

Introducción

En las Píldoras de este mes de noviembre destacamos dos sentencias de audiencias provinciales:

• la de la AP de Tarragona que anula la garantía hipotecaria de la filial en favor de la deuda de su matriz a pesar de que había sido la matriz quien le aportó los fondos para comprar los inmuebles que se hipotecan. La audiencia adapta la doctrina de la compensación equivalente y considera que se sacrifica más de lo que se gana y por tanto el sacrificio patrimonial es injustificado.

This edition will cover:

In In re Roberts, No. 22-10521, 2022 WL 4592086 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2022), the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Colorado (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a Debtor’s alleged ownership interest in cannabis-related companies did not require a dismissal of the case and that a Chapter 7 trustee could administer the Debtor’s assets. This represents a significant change from prior decisions from this Court, which has usually dismissed any bankruptcy case involving cannabis.

Background