Fulltext Search

Ministerial Decisions

Ministerial Decision No. 212/2016 Issuing the Regulations on cultural initiatives Issued on 5 December 2016. Effective from the day after its publication date

Ministerial Decision No. 238/2016 Determining the fees for enrolment in the table of lawyers Issued on 1 December 2016. Effective from the day after its publication date

Pursuant to article 47(1) of the Commercial Companies (Structural Changes) Act ("LME"), spin-offs (partial divisions) are excluded from pre-insolvency acts of disposal susceptible to clawback (avoidance).

An insolvency practitioner filed an avoidance claim, pleading, in the main, that the conveyance of certain real property under the partial division of the insolvent company be held unenforceable and, in the alternative, that the division itself be held unenforceable.

Preferred maritime liens can raise challenging issues during maritime disputes—especially during bankruptcy. Creditors may encounter problems when filing for seizure due to their unique nature, with venue is becoming a determining factor.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given a preliminary ruling on when a security holder has "possession or…control" of financial collateral for the purposes of Directive 2002/47 on financial collateral arrangements. From an English law perspective, this is particularly relevant for anyone considering whether a floating charge over financial collateral qualifies as a security financial collateral arrangement (or SFCA).

Background – UK implementation and interpretation

On 23 September the Insolvency Service published responses to its "Review of the Corporate Insolvency Framework consultation" which in May had suggested four key changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime:

On December 10, 2016, Ontario’s Forfeited Corporate Property Act, 2015 (the FCPA), comes into force,1 along with related amendments to the Ontario Business Corporations Act (the OBCA).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has just made a pronouncement on three of the most important matters open to interpretation concerning the regime applicable to financial collateral arrangements under Directive 47/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002.

El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea acaba de pronunciarse sobre tres de los más importantes extremos interpretativos del régimen de garantías financieras contenido en la Directiva 47/2002.

La Audiencia Nacional, en una interesante sentencia, ha matizado el criterio que desde la Administración ha venido manteniéndose en muchos casos en virtud del cual la presencia de una segunda finalidad en las operaciones de reestructuración empresarial, añadida a la de perseguir una auténtica reorganización de la entidad, conllevaría, partiendo del análisis conjunto de la operación, la exclusión de la posibilidad de aplicar el régimen especial previsto a efectos del impuesto sobre sociedades para las citadas operaciones.

Como regla general, los créditos de los administradores de hecho contra la sociedad concursada que ellos administran (o han administrado) de facto serán clasificados como subordinados en los términos previstos en los artículos 92.5.º y 93.2.2.º de la Ley Concursal. Durante los dos años siguientes a la entrada en vigor de la Ley 17/2014, ha regido un régimen coyuntural que ha permitido que los créditos derivados de la aportación de «nuevos ingresos de tesorería» (fresh money) en el marco de acuerdos de refinanciación típicos escaparan a la postergación concursal.