El tribunal de un Estado miembro que conoce del procedimiento de insolvencia tiene competencia exclusiva para conocer de las acciones revocatorias ejercitadas dentro del mismo

Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 14 de noviembre de 2018

El 6 de junio el Consejo de la Unión Europea aprobó la Propuesta de Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre marcos de reestructuración preventiva, segunda oportunidad y medidas para aumentar la eficacia de los procedimientos de condonación, insolvencia y reestructuración.

Con ello se pone fin al proceso legislativo de la Directiva y queda pendiente solo de publicación en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea (DOUE).

En términos generales, la directiva aprobada impone a los Estados miembros la implementación de normativa armonizada relativa a:

A member state’s court entertaining an insolvency proceeding has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain clawback actions brought within the proceeding

On June 6 the Council of the European Union approved the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures.

This marks an end to the legislative process of the Directive, which is now pending to be publisged in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Put concisely, the approved directive imposes an obligation on member states to implement harmonized legislation on:

The default setting for the hearing of many contested debt recovery and security enforcement cases is by way of affidavit evidence, particularly in the High Court[1]. The creditor swears an affidavit setting out the reasons why it maintains the court should rule in its favour. Certain documents can be presented as exhibits that back up its case such as a contract.

It is now well documented that many owners’ management companies are facing the prospect of litigating to recover the cost of remedial works for defective developments or passing the cost onto the owners themselves. Given the passage of time since the construction of the developments and the insolvency of many of the developers and contractors involved in those projects following the financial crisis, management companies often face an uphill battle to recover damages.

The appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution has generally been considered a “remedy of last resort”[1] and, for over a hundred years, courts have expressed differing views as to when they could appoint such a receiver.

Selection of the main restructuring and insolvency judgments.

Requirements for subordination of claims notified out of time

For a claim notified out of time not to be classed as subordinate, it must meet the following tests: (i) it must appear in the debtors’ documents; (ii) it must be due and payable; (iii) the fact that it exists and is payable must be beyond doubt; and (iv) it cannot be overlooked by the insolvency practitioner when drawing up the list of creditors by reason of the circumstances of the case.

Under article 55 of the Spanish Insolvency Law, it is not allowed after the insolvency order to take individual enforcement action or initiate tax or administrative enforced collection proceedings against the debtor’s property; although until approval of the liquidation plan, administrative enforcement proceedings in which an attachment order has been issued are allowed to continue, together with enforcement actions for employee claims in which the insolvent company's assets have been attached, although certain restrictions apply.

El Tribunal Supremo concluye que la prohibición de ejecuciones una vez abierta la fase de liquidación opera tanto sobre créditos concursales, como sobre los créditos contra la masa, se trate de créditos administrativos o de otros acreedores.