La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo nº1246/2019, de 25 de septiembre anula el art. 197 bis del RD 1065/2007, de 27 de julio por entender que no cuenta con habilitación legal, de modo que la potestad de dictar una liquidación de los elementos de la deuda tributaria vinculados al delito no ampara suficientemente la posibilidad de pasar tanto de culpa o remitir el expediente al Ministerio Fiscal en cualquier momento, incluso cuando ya se ha dictado la liquidación o se ha impuesto la sanción.
On December 3, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in 1732427 Ontario Inc. v. 1787930 Ontario Inc.1 At issue was a pre-authorized debit payment processed by a supplier after a debtor filed a notice of intention to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”). The motion judge had found this payment to be an exercise of a creditor remedy prohibited by the stay provisions of subsection 69(1) of the BIA.
On November 14, 2019, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “ABCA”) released its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. v. 1905393 Alberta Ltd. (“1905393 Alberta”),1 dismissing an appeal of an approval and vesting order made in the context of a receivership proceeding.
In Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314, the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the “ABCA”) upheld the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the “Lower Court”), which held that the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) permits courts to subordinate statutory deemed trusts in favour of the Crown to court-ordered insolvency priming charges.
On November 1, 2019, a number of amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) will come into force pursuant to the Canadian federal government’s budget implementation legislation for 2018 and 2019.
La Dirección General de Los Registros y el Notariado, en su resolución de 10 de julio de 2019, se pronuncia sobre la necesaria relatividad en la rigurosidad del balance de liquidación de una sociedad limitada, en este caso con relación a una "desafortunada" contabilización de una aportación a la cuenta 118.
El Tribunal Supremo, aun admitiendo la vertiente resarcitoria de la cláusula penal, rechaza que tenga eficacia sancionadora para el deudor en concurso. En consecuencia, se sostiene que el interés del concurso sirva como factor de moderación de las cláusulas penales.
La sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo número 145/2019, de 8 de marzo (Ponente Excmo. Sr. don Francisco Javier Orduña Moreno) se pronuncia sobre los efectos de la cláusula penal sobre una concursada tras la resolución de un contrato.
Vesting orders have become one of the most powerful tools in an insolvency professional’s toolkit, providing a purchaser with the comfort that the encumbrances contributing to the debtor’s financial difficulties cannot follow to the new owner. In light of their importance, Canadian insolvency and banking professionals were understandably anxious when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA” or the “Court”) recently asked for submissions on whether receivership vesting orders can extinguish third party interests in land in the nature of a Gross Overriding Royalty (a “GOR”).1
In an April 30, 2019 endorsement accompanying a receivership order made in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada and D.M. Robichaud Associates Ltd. (“D.M. Robichaud”), Justice Hainey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List (the “Court”) held that the receiver’s charge and the receiver’s borrowings charge should have priority over deemed trusts under provincial construction legislation.1
La resolución del Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central de 6 de noviembre de 2018 reconoce el derecho a la deducción de las dotaciones a la provisión por insolvencias en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades, en el caso de transcurso del plazo de seis meses desde el vencimiento de la obligación, con solo manifestar que el crédito se reclamó por teléfono o aportando cualquier indicio de reclamación de la deuda.