In accordance with EU legislation, Member States have the power to limit the obligation of public guarantee institutions to pay employees’ claims in the event of their employer’s insolvency. The Court of Justice found to be compliant a national provision (Bulgarian law) that confines the protection given by said guarantee institutions to those employment relationships that have not ended within the three months prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings.

Todos los supuestos de extinción en que ésta es adoptada por voluntad del trabajador, pero derivada de una decisión unilateral de la empresa, han de tener el mismo tratamiento por parte de los Estados miembros. Así lo señala el Tribunal de de Justicia en un reciente pronunciamiento en el que resuelve una cuestión cuya trascendencia práctica desborda el supuesto planteado específicamente.

Reiterando y desarrollando la argumentación contenida en la STS de 15 de marzo de 2017 [RJ 2017/1370], el Tribunal Supremo ha vuelto a pronunciarse sobre qué debe entenderse por grupo de sociedades a los efectos de la Ley Concursal en su Sentencia de 11 de julio de 2018 [RJ 2018/2815].

Su doctrina gira, expuesta en términos resumidos, en torno a las siguientes ideas:

En un asunto en el que todavía resultaba de aplicación la normativa sobre quiebras del Código de Comercio (y, en concreto, el hoy derogado art. 878), se planteó el problema del alcance de la protección del artículo 34 Ley Hipotecaria con respecto del subadquirente de un derecho real de hipoteca.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a mortgagee’s foreclosure action did not violate an automatic stay imposed during one of the plaintiff’s chapter 13 bankruptcy schedules, where the debtor failed to amend his bankruptcy schedules to disclose his recent acquisition of the subject property from his son.

In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the mortgagee because father and son plaintiffs were judicially estopped from claiming a stay violation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a debtor’s claim seeking to use a bankruptcy trustee’s § 544(a) strong-arm power to avoid a mortgage on the ground that it was never perfected did not require appellate review of the state court foreclosure judgment, and therefore was not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently applied the “conceivable effect” test in holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over a state law fraud claim raised by a third party regarding the validity of a lender’s lien, and therefore, declined to consider the issue on appeal.

In so ruling, the Panel ruled that the state law fraud claim did not invoke “arising under” or “arising in” jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court because the state law fraud claim was not created or determined by the Bankruptcy Code, and could exist outside of bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a borrower is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Law (“Act 6”) relating to an affirmative defense raised in a mortgage foreclosure action that was subsequently discontinued without prejudice.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently held that claim preclusion does not bar a mortgagee from proceeding with a foreclosure complaint despite a prior litigation which resulted in a dismissal with prejudice if the subsequent litigation is based upon a default and acceleration which occurred after the initial foreclosure proceeding.

El orden social mantiene no sólo su competencia, sino la aplicación del régimen jurídico de la sucesión laboral de empresa, aun cuando exista un auto del juez del concurso por el que se exonere de deudas a la empresa adquirente.