The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation1 illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson2 , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision.
The Spanish Insolvency Act has been reformed several times recently to solve technical problems and to facilitate the continuity of economically or operationally viable companies. In the final quarter of 2014 alone, two partial reforms of the act were approved.
Royal Decree-Law 11/2014, of September 5, on urgent measures in insolvency matters
The published judgment in Abbey Forwarding[1] will not make for comfortable reading for HMRC. Having instigated the winding up of a profitable business, which led to the dismissal of 23 employees, and accused innocent directors of fraud, HMRC then withdrew all assessments made against the company and attempted to avoid undertakings it had given to the court when seeking the original winding up order.
Introduction
In the recent case of Re LDK Solar Co Ltd,(1)Justice Lam considered the approach that the court should take in deciding whether to invoke its jurisdiction to approve an arrangement or compromise between a foreign company and its creditors or members.
On March 7, 2014, the State Council released its Opinion on Further Optimizing the Market Environment for Corporate Merger and Restructuring (Guo Fa [2014] No. 14, “Circular 14”), to improve the institutional mechanisms and policies that encourage corporate mergers and restructuring. Circular 14 gives overall guidance on special treatments for merger and corporate restructuring transactions with regard to enterprise income tax (“EIT”), land value-added tax, value-added tax and business tax.
The Supreme Court confirmed the lower-court judgments that had rescinded the payments made to the managing director through remuneration, as the bylaw requisite to create the right to receive it had not been met, as well as payments made to shareholders through dividends, differentiating between the resolution of the meeting to distribute dividends and the payment of these dividends.
At the end of October 2014, as insolvency administrators of Establiments Miró, we carried out the sale of the insolvent company’s production unit to the Swiss fund Springwater Capital LLC.
This transaction was successful, resulting in maintaining 476 jobs, preserving 67 stores, and bringing income of €4,505,937 for the insolvency (€3,000,000 for the price and €1,505,937 for recovering the amount of the bonds to be substituted by the purchaser).
The Supreme Court repeated its criterion on classifying as insolvency claims any leasing installments arising after the declaration of insolvency, and interpreted the amendment introduced into article 61.2 of the Insolvency Act (“IA”) by the 2011 reform.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, No 117-B/1999.P1.S1., of 2015-01-08 Transforming companies – Partner – Resignation – Liquidation of the company – Judicial ruling – Feasibility – Decision
In this decision, the Supreme Court of Justice (“STJ”) was asked to give ruling on the feasibility of the decision that was presented as an enforceable title, which was delivered within a special procedure of liquidation of an equity interest presented by a creditor partner against a debtor company.
The Madrid Senior Commercial Judges have published the conclusions of the meetings held on November 7 and 21 on the unification of applicable criteria of the reforms of the Insolvency Act enacted by Royal Decree-Law 11/201415 and Act 17/2014.16