Background
On 6 March 2020, the restructuring of Doncasters Group's 1.22 billion funded debt was completed. Following a successful non-core disposals program, the Doncasters Group (a leading worldwide supplier of high quality engineered components for the aerospace, industrial gas turbine and specialist automotive industries) operates from 12 principal manufacturing facilities based across the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Mexico and China.
La Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado se pronunció en esta resolución sobre la posibilidad de que el nombramiento del representante persona física de una sociedad nombrada administradora se realice a través de un apoderado de ésta, sobre la necesidad de que conste la aceptación del representante persona física y sobre la naturaleza de esta figura.
Los administradores responden de las deudas contraídas por la sociedad tras la aparición de una causa de disolución si no promueven la ordenada disolución y liquidación. Sin embargo, esta obligación se refiere a las deudas surgidas durante su cargo, de manera que no les son imputables las deudas originadas antes de su nombramiento como administradores, aunque al acceder al cargo la sociedad ya estuviera en causa de disolución.
In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.
On January 13, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC., Case No. 16-12700 [Adv. Pro.
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue that has greatly divided Circuit Courts of Appeal – the question of whether an entity that retains possession of a debtor’s property has an affirmative obligation to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition or risk being in violation of the automatic stay.
The Supreme Court, in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,1 issued an unanimous opinion last week, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly denied the ability of creditor Ritzen Group Inc.
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)1The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.2
A recent bankruptcy court decision out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, In re Verity Health Sys. of Cal., Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151 (ER) (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019), is a good reminder of how difficult it is for a purchaser under an asset purchase agreement to get out of the deal by invoking a Material Adverse Effect clause (also known as a Material Adverse Change clause) (an “MAE”).
La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo nº1246/2019, de 25 de septiembre anula el art. 197 bis del RD 1065/2007, de 27 de julio por entender que no cuenta con habilitación legal, de modo que la potestad de dictar una liquidación de los elementos de la deuda tributaria vinculados al delito no ampara suficientemente la posibilidad de pasar tanto de culpa o remitir el expediente al Ministerio Fiscal en cualquier momento, incluso cuando ya se ha dictado la liquidación o se ha impuesto la sanción.