The DGRN is seeking to strike a balance between the necessary rigor that must prevail in the Spanish registration system and the legal certainty needed for the recipients of assets during insolvency proceedings. 

In a decision rendered on October 24, 2018, the Directorate-General for Registers and the Notarial Profession (DGRN) relaxed the requirements for registration of assets acquired during insolvency proceedings, and specifically, during the liquidation phase.

• A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action.
• Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another opinion.
• Federal courts interpreting Ohio law must apply the correct statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions.

In the bankruptcy case of In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 199–200 (N.D. Ohio Bankr.

Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.

Nulidad de un despido colectivo realizado en la sucursal española de una sociedad sometida a un procedimiento de insolvencia alemán

Sentencia de la Sala de lo Social de la Audiencia Nacional de 30 de abril de 2018

Collective layoff voided at Spanish branch of a company subject to German insolvency proceedings

Judgment by the National Appellate Court (Labor Chamber) on April 30, 2018

An insolvency order by a German court on a company does not in itself authorize that company to carry out a collective layoff at its Spanish branch. The German company should have petitioned for a local insolvency proceeding on its Spanish branch to obtain authorization from the judge hearing the Spanish insolvency proceeding to conduct the collective layoff at its branch.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently rejected an attempt by homeowners to collaterally attack a state court mortgage foreclosure judgment, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of an amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, but on alternative grounds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-20(j) did not alter or limit the lender’s right to foreclose under the terms of the valid reverse mortgage contract where the non-borrower spouse was still living in the home.

Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition for injunctive relief to prevent the foreclosure sale.

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.

Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.

No toda venta de unidad productiva en el seno de un concurso es una operación no sujeta a IVA

Sentencia del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de 21 de marzo de 2018