La Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública ha resuelto, en Resolución de 19 de febrero de 2024, que una sociedad concursada, en fase de liquidación, no puede nombrar un administrador único. La DGSJyFP excluye, implícitamente, que subsista cualquier rango de funciones representativas que no se vea afectada por el concurso, a pesar de lo generalmente defendido por la doctrina.

Referencias Jurídicas CMS

Abril 2024

Posts Jurídicos

Corporate / M&A

Avoidance action is an umbrella term for adversary proceedings that seek to unwind or avoid transactions that occurred before an insolvency filing. These actions are also referred to as “claw-back claims” because, by undoing a transaction, an asset or value is being clawed back into the insolvency estate.

El pasado 20 de julio de 2023 fue publicado en el Boletín Oficial de Estado el Real Decreto 668/2023, de 18 de julio, que modificó el Reglamento de planes y fondos de pensiones al objeto de completar la regulación e impulso de los planes de pensiones de empleo y reforzar así, el segundo pilar de la previsión social en España. Este artículo aborda las principales novedades del último desarrollo reglamentario y repasa algunos de los retos que persisten de cara a impulsar y consolidar el segundo pilar y motivar el ahorro. 

R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court and another (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 38

On appeal from: [2021] EWHC 3013

There have been many reported cases in the bankruptcies of Mr and Mrs Brake (the “Brakes”) including the recent case of Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kicks [2023] EWCA Civ 901 where the Court of Appeal considered an application under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA 1986”) against a decision of the trustees in bankruptcy of the Brakes (the “Trustees”).

The Supreme Court’s judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors^[1] (“Sequana”) is a key decision on the law surrounding directors’ duties.

The High Court was required to consider the Supreme Court’s Sequana judgment in Hunt v Singh (below).

What did we learn from Sequana?

Why calculating potential claims under s214 Insolvency Act 1986 can be far from simple

Introduction

Overview

In the recent case of Brake & Anor v Chedington Court Estate Limited [2023] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court has clarified the categories of persons who have standing to make a challenge to the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Supreme Court confirmed that its decision will also apply to creditors and others seeking to challenge the actions of a liquidator under s168(5) of the Act. The decision will be welcomed by practitioners.

Summary

Trustees in bankruptcy can often come up against challenges in dealing with obstructive bankrupts. A bankrupt might ignore communications and requests for interview, fail to disclose information about their assets, or provide partial cooperation which fails to offer any substantive assistance.