Continuando con nuestro envío anterior, nos alegra compartir, en esta ocasión, una guía práctica que nuestro equipo de concursal ha preparado sobre la reforma del Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal. Para facilitar la comprensión y alcance de esta profunda revisión de la normativa concursal en España, se ha estructurado su análisis en tres partes:

Nos alegra compartir este compendio que ha preparado nuestro equipo de Concursal con la evolución de la reforma delTexto Refundido de la Ley Concursaldesde el texto de la Directiva hasta la redacción aprobada, incluyendo los principales informes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that the “no fair ground of doubt” standard established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Taggart v. Lorenzen, a case involving alleged violation of a Chapter 7 discharge order, governed civil contempt proceedings for violation of a confirmed reorganization plan under Chapter 11.

El reconocimiento de un derecho de separación por el atesoramiento abusivo de beneficios supone un mecanismo de protección de la minoría. Su ejercicio, sin embargo, puede resultar perjudicial para la sociedad, que tendrá que abonar al socio saliente el valor de su participación. Por este motivo, siempre se ha planteado la posibilidad de enervar, de algún modo, el ejercicio del derecho. La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 25 de enero se ocupa de un caso de esta naturaleza reconociendo, en un supuesto muy concreto, el carácter abusivo del ejercicio del derecho de separación.  

La CNMV ha publicado un documento con “preguntas y respuestas” que pretende servir de ayuda en la interpretación por las sociedades cotizadas del régimen de operaciones vinculadas tras la reforma introducida por la Ley 5/2021 para la incorporación de la Directiva sobre derechos de los accionistas en las sociedades cotizadas. A continuación, se incluye un resumen de los criterios interpretativos ofrecidos por el organismo supervisor.

Referencias Jurídicas CMS

Artículos de fondo

In its top consumer credit law decisions of 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that settlement of an FDCPA claim does not trigger an attorney fee award, examined third-party contact as a “communication” under the FDCPA, and ruled there was no “partial surrender” of collateral in a Chapter 13 plan.

Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 993 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2021)

When 2020 ended, many of us were unsure what 2021 would look like from a bankruptcy perspective. Would consumer filings increase? Could we see bankruptcy reform and particularly in the area of discharge of student loans? There was a lot to consider throughout the year. This article will provide some insight as to what we saw and where we may be headed in 2022.

Bankruptcy Filings Down in 2021

Bankruptcy filings through the first 11 months of 2021 were at their lowest levels since the 1980’s.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several actions by a borrower against a mortgagee, and in so ruling also held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the lower court’s remand order, and that the borrower had waived his right to challenge an award of attorney fees and costs in connection with the remand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently rejected a borrower’s objections to a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the borrower’s claim objection as it was ultimately based on the alleged impropriety of the creditor’s claim from a prior bankruptcy.

A copy of the opinion in BVS Construction v. Prosperity Bank is available at: Link to Opinion.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling denying a borrower’s motion to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure against him and confirming the judicial sale of the borrower’s property.