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:

The U.K. government is proposing to reintroduce preferential status to certain taxes in U.K. insolvencies beginning 6 April 2020. If enacted:

• certain taxes owed to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) would rank ahead of floating charges in U.K. insolvencies;
• the legislation would be retroactive, applying to such tax liabilities incurred at any time prior to insolvency; and
• it is likely to have a significant impact on asset-based loans (ABLs) involving U.K. obligors.

Introduction

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.

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, that a debtor’s ability to reject executory contracts under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the debtor to rescind trademark licenses. In concluding that trademark licensees cannot unilaterally be deprived of their rights to use a debtor’s mark, the Court resolved a long-standing circuit split that the International Trademark Association had referred to as “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”

A recent decision from the U.S.

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.