En una reciente resolución, la DGRN trata de equilibrar el necesario rigor que debe presidir nuestro sistema registral con la adecuada agilidad y seguridad jurídica que requieren los adquirentes de bienes cuando se ha declarado la insolvencia.
La Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado (DGRN) ha relajado los requisitos de inscripción de los bienes adquiridos durante el procedimiento concursal y, señaladamente, durante la fase de liquidación. Así lo señala en una resolución de 24 de octubre de 2018.
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.
High Court orders the liquidation of CBL Insurance
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.
On various occasions during the periods 2012 to 2018, Shane Warner Builders Limited (SWBL) regularly failed to pay GST and PAYE to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
In January 2018 the Commissioner filed an application to put SWBL into liquidation. The proceeding was adjourned in March 2018 whilst the Commissioner and Applicant engaged in negotiations for relief which ultimately failed due to SWBL's history of failures to pay tax arrears and failing to provide substantive supporting evidence regarding the source of funds required to settle current tax arrears.
North Harbour Motors Limited (in liquidation) (North Harbour) issued a statutory demand against Moffat Road Limited (Moffat) in respect of two separate $30,000 deposits paid by North Harbour to Moffat on the purchase of two properties pursuant to agreements for sale and purchase dated 6 July 2015 (the Agreements).
FTG Securities Limited involved an application by FTG Securities Limited (FTG) for declarations as to the interpretation of a Deed of Priority. The Deed of Priority was entered into by Canterbury Finance Limited (CFL) and a bank with respect to the security interests in Tuam Ventures Limited (in Rec and in Liq) (TVL). Declaratory relief was sought against the bank and the receivers of TVL. An issue raised by way of an affirmative defence was whether the assignment of TVL's debt and securities to FTG is valid from a technical legal perspective and therefore wh
In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds. David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation. Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.
In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.
Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.