1. Prolegómenos sobre naturaleza del leasing
State unemployment benefits are paid pursuant to a system that relies on trust. Benefits are paid based on representations made by claimants that they are out of work and that they continue to seek out full-time work. If a claimant finds part-time work, then benefits are reduced accordingly.
A recent opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan (the “Court”) addresses a Chapter 7 debtor’s attempt to discharge a debt owed to the State of Michigan for overpaid unemployment benefits, and penalties and interest stemming from the overpayment.
Have you noticed? We have. Bankruptcy filings are down and we are collecting on accounts that seemed hopeless a year ago. Although not all sectors of our economy are as robust as we would like, the improvement presents two opportunities for businesses that sell goods or services on credit.
What happens to funds held by a Chapter 13 trustee (the “Trustee”) in the event that a Chapter 13 debtor dismisses her case voluntarily? That’s the question that was addressed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “Court”) in a recent opinion.1
In this case, the Chapter 13 debtor (the “Debtor”) owned a residence with significant equity. The Court confirmed a plan pursuant to which the Debtor would retain her residence and make monthly payments to the Trustee in the amount of $8,500.75 for 60 months.
The purpose of filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy is to discharge debts. But even after obtaining a discharge, a debtor is not totally in the clear. A recent case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan involves an adversary proceeding in which the United States Trustee sought to revoke a Chapter 7 debtor’s (the “Debtor”) discharge.[i]
On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz[1], ruling that the term “actual fraud” in section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code includes forms of fraud that do not involve a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Análisis GA&P | Mayo 2016 1 N. de la C.: En las citas literales se ha rectificado en lo posible —sin afectar al sentido— la grafía de ciertos elementos (acentos, mayúsculas, símbolos, abreviaturas, cursivas...) para adecuarlos a las normas tipográficas utilizadas en el resto del texto. 1.
La Ley 27/2014, de 27 de noviembre, del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (“LIS”), aplicable a los periodos impositivos iniciados a partir del 1 de enero del 2015 introdujo importantes novedades en relación con el régimen especial de neutralidad fiscal aplicable a las operaciones de reestructuración (“Régimen Especial”).
Entre otras, el Régimen Especial ha quedado configurado como el régimen aplicable por defecto a estas operaciones, no siendo necesario optar por su aplicación (sin perjuicio de la obligación de comunicar la realización de la operación a la Administración Tributaria).
El Tribunal Supremo acepta que la ausencia de entendimiento entre los socios pueda considerarse un motivo económico válido en las operaciones de reestructuración empresarial cuando aquéllos puedan probar que sus discrepancias en cuanto a la organización empresarial condicionan la viabilidad de la empresa.
En situaciones de crisis empresarial no son extrañas demandas de despido «tácito». Aunque se trata de una denominación no recogida por el legislador laboral, reproduce la posibilidad que el artículo 50 del Estatuto de los Trabajadores otorga al trabajador para extinguir su contrato en determinadas circunstancias y con derecho a la indemnización correspondiente al despido improcedente. Este tipo de demandas suelen coincidir con los procesos concursales, si bien la realidad temporal puede ser distinta.