En el concurso de acreedores de Cubigel Compressors S. A. U. (Cubigel), la administración concursal calificó de subordinado el crédito de Koxka Technologies S. L. U. (Koxka) por pertenecer esta sociedad al mismo grupo que la primera. De hecho, tanto Cubigel como Koxka eran sociedades unipersonales y sus únicos socios (a su vez sociedades mercantiles) estaban participados en porcentajes del 65 % y del 79 % por una misma persona física.
A continuación vamos a explorar diversos problemas que se plantean a propósito del apartado 9 de la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal, cuando existen garantes personales (o garantes reales por deuda ajena) en un proceso de refinanciación homologable por dicha disposición.
1. El crédito contingente contra el garante que refinancia por la disposición adicional 4.ª
Below we will explore several problems that arise in connection with para. 9 of the 4th Additional Provision ("AP") of the Insolvency Act ("LCon") when there are personal guarantors – or collateral-providers for third party debt – within refinancing arrangement ‘homologation’ (court-sanctioning) proceedings under said 4th AP.
1. Contingent claim against the guarantor who refinances under the 4th AP.
La Dirección General de Tributos analiza las reglas de valoración aplicables en supuestos de aportaciones de capital realizadas por compensación de créditos en aquellos casos en los que la capitalización se efectúa en diferentes plazos y de forma sucesiva.
On April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124. The decision is arguably the past year’s most hotly anticipated and discussed decision in Alberta, despite involving bankruptcy proceedings of a relatively small junior oil and gas company. The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 split, upheld the trial judge’s decision that a receiver can disclaim or renounce uneconomic assets that are subject to costly environmental liabilities.
The Court of Appeal of Ontario found in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Konga that the interpretation of a guarantee is a question of mixed fact and law, entitled to deference on appeal. Further, for a guarantor to obtain a discharge from the guarantee, he must establish that the bank's demand caused the debtor's default.
The financial crisis has brought significant regulatory changes for credit institutions, many of them aimed at strengthening their capital requirements and creating safety buffers to absorb losses and recapitalise unsound and failing institutions.
The latest is an instrument known as senior non-preferred debt, which is midway between senior debt and subordinated/Tier 2 debt. This instrument will not qualify as Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital, but will be eligible to compute for purposes of TLAC/MREL requirements and will be cheaper for banks than pure subordinated debt.
Siguen sin resolverse satisfactoriamente las cuestiones laborales y de la Seguridad Social en relación con la transmisión de unidad productiva en concurso.
The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.
In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.
Background