Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).
When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”
When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?
El Tribunal Supremo, en su sentencia número 513/2024, de 17 de abril (Rec. 2443/2020) ("la Sentencia"), confirma la válida legitimación del recurrente declarado en concurso de acreedores con suspensión de facultades, en tanto la administración concursal omitió el deber de sustituirlo en el procedimiento en trámite.
En los últimos años, sociedades y fondos han sido capaces de aumentar la rentabilidad de sus inversiones al implantar políticas ESG. Esta herramienta les ha permitido, no sólo una correcta mitigación de los riesgos, sino también aprovechar nuevas oportunidades, generar valor y mejorar la reputación corporativa, al mismo tiempo que contribuían al desarrollo sostenible y con impacto en la sociedad.
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.
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case