El tribunal de un Estado miembro que conoce del procedimiento de insolvencia tiene competencia exclusiva para conocer de las acciones revocatorias ejercitadas dentro del mismo

Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 14 de noviembre de 2018

El 6 de junio el Consejo de la Unión Europea aprobó la Propuesta de Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre marcos de reestructuración preventiva, segunda oportunidad y medidas para aumentar la eficacia de los procedimientos de condonación, insolvencia y reestructuración.

Con ello se pone fin al proceso legislativo de la Directiva y queda pendiente solo de publicación en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea (DOUE).

En términos generales, la directiva aprobada impone a los Estados miembros la implementación de normativa armonizada relativa a:

A member state’s court entertaining an insolvency proceeding has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain clawback actions brought within the proceeding

On June 6 the Council of the European Union approved the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures.

This marks an end to the legislative process of the Directive, which is now pending to be publisged in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Put concisely, the approved directive imposes an obligation on member states to implement harmonized legislation on:

Selection of the main restructuring and insolvency judgments.

Requirements for subordination of claims notified out of time

For a claim notified out of time not to be classed as subordinate, it must meet the following tests: (i) it must appear in the debtors’ documents; (ii) it must be due and payable; (iii) the fact that it exists and is payable must be beyond doubt; and (iv) it cannot be overlooked by the insolvency practitioner when drawing up the list of creditors by reason of the circumstances of the case.

In an agricultural lien contest between three creditors of a bankrupt commercial farm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of a bank that provided debtor-in-possession financing, holding that the locale of the farm products determined the applicable lien law and that bank’s lien was superior to the liens of two nurseries that supplied trees and shrubs because the latter were either unperfected or unenforceable.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a lower bankruptcy court’s ruling that a refinanced mortgage was enforceable as to the interests of both husband and wife, where the wife did not execute the note and was not defined as a “borrower” in the body of the mortgage, but nonetheless initialed and signed the mortgage document as a “borrower” in the signature block.

Under article 55 of the Spanish Insolvency Law, it is not allowed after the insolvency order to take individual enforcement action or initiate tax or administrative enforced collection proceedings against the debtor’s property; although until approval of the liquidation plan, administrative enforcement proceedings in which an attachment order has been issued are allowed to continue, together with enforcement actions for employee claims in which the insolvent company's assets have been attached, although certain restrictions apply.

El Tribunal Supremo concluye que la prohibición de ejecuciones una vez abierta la fase de liquidación opera tanto sobre créditos concursales, como sobre los créditos contra la masa, se trate de créditos administrativos o de otros acreedores.

The Supreme Court of Missouri recently held that a trial court abused its discretion by certifying an overly broad class with a class representative whose claims against the debt collector defendant were not typical of the class.