With the increase in global trade and business, often involving complex corporate structures in multiple jurisdictions, we expect to see a significant increase in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters in coming years. This is especially the case with rapid advancements in technology and digital change driving “borderless” transactions and investments in every industry.
In a decision rendered on June 6, 2022, Justice Sotomayor authored the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case Siegel v. Fitzgerald, holding that a statutory increase in United States Trustee’s fees violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause set forth in Article I, § 7, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”1
On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the doctrine of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness has been described as a “narrow doctrine by which an appellate court deems it prudent for practical reasons to forbear deciding an appeal when to grant the relief requested will undermine the finality and reliability of consummated plans of reorganization.”1 By his petition, David Hargreaves—an unsecured noteholder of debtor Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc.
On December 12, 2019, the Third Circuit issued a decision in In re Odyssey Contracting Corp., finding a debtor-subcontractor had waived its right to appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order directing the prime contractor and the debtor-subcontractor to resolve an adversary proceeding in accordance with a stipulation entered into by the parties and approved by the bankruptcy court prior to trial. This ruling has implications for all parties litigating in the Third Circuit, as the Odyssey ruling makes clear that parties who enter into stipulated agreements that depend on
The District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a trustee could not amend a complaint to add federal constructive fraudulent transfer claims because those claims were preempted by the safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] The District Court found, under a plain language reading of the safe harbor provision, 11 U.S.C.
La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera, de 22 de mayo, remarca que determinados comportamientos constitutivos de calificación culpable del concurso pueden provocar una inversión de la carga de la prueba sobre la incidencia del comportamiento de los administradores en la generación o incremento del déficit concursal, pero sigue sin ofrecer la «justificación añadida» de la atribución de la responsabilidad concursal.
1. La reforma del artículo 172 bis de la Ley Concursal
Se contiene una descripción y valoración general de la Directiva (UE) 2019/1023.
1. Introducción
In May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a much anticipated decision in Garvin v. Cook Investments NW, SPNWY, LLC, 922 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.
En todo tipo de procesos y, entre ellos, en los incidentes concursales, la denuncia por la parte demandada de la falta de jurisdicción o de competencia no puede plantearse como una suerte de excepción en la contestación a la demanda o en momento posterior, sino que debe promoverse con carácter previo a la contestación, mediante declinatoria (art. 64.1 Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil [LEC]).