In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency:

If an agency agreement is resolved due to the agent being declared insolvent, the business owner must compensate the agent for clientele if the requirements under the Agency Act are met (the agent brought new clients or clearly increased transactions with existing clients, and the previous activity is still beneficial for the business owner). 

In its writ dated February 2, 2016, the First Instance Civil Court No. 38 of Barcelona raised a preliminary issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that writ, it requested the EU court to determine whether the business practice of assigning or buying credits without offering consumers the possibility to settle the debt by paying the assignee the outstanding amount is in line with EU law.

News of the bankruptcy of one of the world’s largest ocean carriers, Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (Hanjin), continues to have a ripple effect globally, creating legal entanglements and disrupting company supply chains. Some ports, terminals, stevedores, truckers and rail carriers have refused to service Hanjin vessels and containers for fear of not getting paid.

Key Notes:

En los años de mayor crisis económica se dispararon las compraventas de unidades productivas autónomas en el marco de procedimientos concursales. La Ley Concursal regulaba estas compraventas permitiendo a los adjudicatarios reflotar un negocio minorando las cargas acumuladas hasta el momento del concurso.Uno de los debates en estas situaciones es el alcance de la responsabilidad de la empresa adjudicataria sobre las obligaciones laborales de los trabajadores afectos a la unidad productiva autónoma.

My spouse and I visited Chicago years ago, and confusedly started driving the wrong way down a one-way street.  We were promptly pulled over by one of the Windy City’s finest.  I gave him my best smile, and said, “Sorry, officer, we’re from out of town.”  He grunted, “Don’t they have one-way streets where you come from?”  But he didn’t give us a ticket.  A recent disciplinary opinion out of Oklahoma, involving a tech-challenged bankruptcy lawyer, brings the story to mind.

E-filing woes bring bankruptcy court discipline

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that constructive fraudulent conveyance claims arising under state law are preempted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Code), where the transfers were made by or to financial intermediaries effectuating settlement payments in securities transactions or made in connection with a securities contract, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is a debtor in possession, bankruptcy trustee or other creditors’ representative.

1.                 BACKGROUND

Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Porto of February 15, 2016