En la SAP de Madrid (secc. 28ª) de 7 de diciembre de 2012 y la SAP de Barcelona (secc. 15ª) de 4 de octubre de 2012 se discutía la calificación concursal de un crédito que había sido calificado por la administración concursal como subordinado por entender que la sociedad acreedora pertenecía al mismo grupo de sociedades que la concursada. En ambos casos las Audiencias realizan un análisis del concepto de grupo a efectos concursales antes y después de la reforma de la Ley Concursal introducida por la Ley 38/2011.
Se rechaza la inscripción del nombramiento de liquidador acordado por la junta general ante la aparición de un activo sobrevenido de una sociedad cuya hoja registral había sido cerrada por el juzgado de lo mercantil ante la conclusión del concurso por inexistencia de bienes.
La DGRN se cuestiona si es posible inscribir el acuerdo de nombramiento de liquidador de una sociedad cuya hoja registral fue cerrada por auto del Juez de lo Mercantil que decretó la conclusión del concurso de acreedores de la sociedad por inexistencia de bienes28.
La apreciación de mala fe a efectos de subordinación del crédito de la contraparte a la restitución en caso de rescisión exige, además de conocer la situación de insolvencia o proximidad a la insolvencia del deudor, la concurrencia de un aspecto subjetivo (conciencia de que se afecta negativamente –perjuicio- a los demás acreedores) y de un aspecto objetivo (valorativo de la conducta del acreedor, consistente en que esta sea merecedora de la repulsa ética en el tráfico jurídico).
La caducidad del cargo de administrador se produce ope legis, sin necesidad de que acceda al Registro Mercantil ningún documento que lo constate. En estos casos, a diferencia del cese o la separación, el inicio del plazo de prescripción de la acción de responsabilidad contra el administrador comienza desde el momento en que deba considerarse caducado el cargo.
The British Columbia case of Botham Holdings Ltd. (Trustee of) v. Braydon Investments Ltd. is a reminder that tax and estate plans must take non-tax issues and law into account. It can be extremely dangerous to let the tax tail wag the dog!
Mr. Botham and a family trust were the shareholders of Botham Holdings Ltd. ("Holdings"). In 2004 Holdings was fortunate enough to realize a large capital gain and, as a result, incurred a significant income tax liability.
Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense? What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”
Perimeter Transportation Ltd. (Re), 2010 BCCA 509, on appeal from 2009 BCSC 1458
Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60
Section 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act creates a deemed trust for unremitted GST, which operates despite any other act of Canada, except the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. However section 18.3(1) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") provides that any statutory deemed trust in favour of the Crown does not operate under the CCAA, subject to certain exceptions which do not mention GST.
Outdoor Broadcast Networks Inc (Re), 2010 ONSC 5647
The debtor had filed a notice of intention to make a proposal (“NOI”) to its creditors under the BIA. It was proposing to immediately sell certain assets in Ontario and BC to help it fund its proposal. As the proposal had not yet been made, the debtor was the one selling assets out of the ordinary course, and the sale was subject to the Ontario Bulk Sales Act. That Act does not apply to sales by bankruptcy trustees, receivers, sheriffs, or other liquidators for the benefit of creditors.
Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 259, on appeal from (2009) 319 D.L.R. (4th) 735 (BCCA)
The union on behalf of the unionized employees of Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd., the bankrupt employer, had applied to the B.C.S.C. for directions and obtained a decision of that Court that the “wages” protected under the WEPPA “superpriority” for unpaid employees included amounts paid by the employer to third parties on behalf of the employees.