Hello,
If you are served with a demand letter from your lender, you don’t have to fold up your tent and give in. If, like most companies, you feel that if you had more time, you could improve the situation (to the benefit of the Bank and the company), there are options. Here are 5 things that you can consider which will make it more likely that the Bank will either agree, or be forced to agree, to give you some more time to come up with a better solution.
Supreme Administrative
Court Judgement of October 12, 2016
Case no. 0797/15
In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that expenses related to employees, recorded as remuneration, salaries or wages, relevant to the limit of 15% foreseen for acceptance of the expenses with social benefits referred to in Article 43.2 of the CIT Code, are not limited to those that were subject to mandatory Social Security contributions.
South Central Administrative Court
Judgement of October 13, 2016
Good afternoon,
Here are this week’s Court of Appeal Summaries. Civil topics covered included MVA, SABs, family law, vexatious litigants, employment law, simplified procedure and another chapter in the Indian Residential Schools settlement.The RJM56 Investments Inc v Kurnik decision highlights the importance of litigators not treating the tax implications of a settlement as an afterthought and of obtaining tax advice before completing a settlement.
Have a great weekend!
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.
In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency:
If an agency agreement is resolved due to the agent being declared insolvent, the business owner must compensate the agent for clientele if the requirements under the Agency Act are met (the agent brought new clients or clearly increased transactions with existing clients, and the previous activity is still beneficial for the business owner).
In its writ dated February 2, 2016, the First Instance Civil Court No. 38 of Barcelona raised a preliminary issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that writ, it requested the EU court to determine whether the business practice of assigning or buying credits without offering consumers the possibility to settle the debt by paying the assignee the outstanding amount is in line with EU law.