El Tribunal Supremo considera que la falta de legitimación para recurrir de una concursada en liquidación fue subsanada con la ratificación posterior de su administración concursal.

La sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo de 23 de mayo de 2018 (Ponente Ignacio Sancho Gargallo) analiza el papel de la concursada en liquidación y de la administración concursal a la hora de interponer recursos en procedimientos en trámite antes de la declaración de concurso y apertura de la fase de liquidación.

Recientemente, en sus sentencias de fechas 13 de marzo de 2018 y 3 de abril de 2018, el Tribunal Supremo se ha pronunciado acerca de la interpretación del contenido en el artículo 174.5 de la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria (en adelante, “LGT”), relativo a la legitimación del responsable tributario para impugnar, con ocasión del recurso frente al acuerdo de derivación de responsabilidad, la liquidación en que tiene su origen dicho acuerdo.

El Tribunal Supremo ha declarado que la responsabilidad solidaria de los administradores sobre la base del art. 367 LSC subsiste, aunque el acreedor conozca, al contratar, la situación de insolvencia de la sociedad. El mero conocimiento de dicha situación por parte del acreedor no es suficiente para acreditar su mala fe al reclamar las deudas a los administradores y, por tanto, estos siguen siendo solidariamente responsables por no promover la disolución si las pérdidas determinaron que el patrimonio neto quedara por debajo de la mitad del capital social.

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.

La responsabilidad solidaria en el pago de deudas tributarias por parte de quienes colaboren en la ocultación y/o transmisión de bienes con la intención de sustraerlos al procedimiento ejecutivo de cobro –impidiendo así su embargo– ha sido recientemente objeto de análisis por parte del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central (“TEAC”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a party with a pecuniary interest affected by a bankruptcy court order satisfies the “person aggrieved” requirement for appellate standing even where the party fails to appear and object in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the appeal for lack of standing and remanded the case.

The District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District of Florida recently denied a motion to reconsider an order awarding appellate attorney’s fees to borrowers who were the prevailing party on appeal, reversing judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of the mortgagee.

The District Court of Appeal for the Second District of Florida recently affirmed an order involuntarily dismissing an action to foreclose a second mortgage which secured a home equity line of credit.

In so ruling, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s holding that the promissory note for the relevant home equity line of credit was not admissible into evidence because it was nonnegotiable, and thus, not a self-authenticating instrument.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that where a mortgagee rescinded a notice of intent to accelerate and then filed a foreclosure action without first issuing a new notice of intent to accelerate, it failed to meet its burden to show clear and unequivocal notice of intent to accelerate prior to filing suit, and therefore was not entitled to foreclosure judgment.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the bank, and dismissed the foreclosure action.