The matter subject to this analysis is decision taken by a Bankruptcy Administration dealing with three companies of the same company group which are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. Given the situation and in response of the confusing information of assets, the Administration under discussion decided to gather the three companies joining all their creditors in a sole debt pooling and besides, joining all the rights and assets of the three companies.  

On March 21st, 2012 the Spanish High Court rendered its Judgment in which stated that credits for supplies accrued before a company has been stated in bankruptcy, have to be paid as preferential credits, this means that they shall have priority over the rest of the credits, in those cases in which the Court who is dealing with the bankruptcy proceedings had ordered the supplier to continue with the respective supply in the interest of the bankrupt company.

The insolvency administrators (hereinafter, “the Plaintiff”) of the company Santa Teresa Materiales de Construcción S.L. (hereinafter “the Company”) sought the declaration of invalidity of the transaction undertaken by the Banco Santander S.A. (hereinafter, “the Bank”) classified by the Plaintiff as debt offset.

In its decision dated November 13th 2007, Madrid’s Provincial Court accepted the appeal against a decision delivered by Madrid´s Mercantile Court (number 6), which denied the adoption of civil precautionary measures, which were requested together with an action for joint and several liability against the administrators of Afinsa.

The precautionary measure requested was the preventive freezing of assets from the administrators in order to prevent possible concealment actions.

Spanish insolvency law has been modified recently by Act 22/2003. This is the culmination of a long process aimed at including in Spanish Law an insolvency law that will rectify the failures of previous legislation and create a law that fits in with social, economic and legal reality. In order to incorporate the criminal sanctions available against insolvent companies, this Act has also modified various articles of the Penal Code.

As a consequence of the current situation of economic crisis and the sudden braking in construction, we observe that every day we are finding ourselves with fresh news of negotiations with financial institutions, and applications for declarations of bankruptcy from creditors.

As many of you know, on December 19, 2011, Saab Automobile AB and affiliated companies filed for bankruptcy in Sweden. The company issued a bulletin to its dealers that same day, announcing that it immediately suspended processing and payment of all claims, and it is suspending warranty coverage on all new Saab vehicles. What does this mean for dealers? Every dealer’s situation is different, and each dealer will have to evaluate its own circumstances based on consultation with an attorney.

In a recent case from the Swedish Supreme Court, case no Ö 4631-11, jurisdictional matters in terms of competence of Swedish courts were considered. The case involved a creditor’s recovery claims in a bankruptcy, in which the assets requested to be recovered consisted of Swedish and foreign patents that had previously been assigned under an agreement in 2004 to a foreign company located in Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Swiss Civil Procedure Law in a Nutshell (Volume 11 of 12)

This blog series provides litigators and corporate counsel from other jurisdictions with a practical understanding of the mechanics, advantages, and limits of litigation before State Courts in Switzerland.

Enforcement of Money Claims

Money claims are enforced by virtue of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The creditor may either initiate enforcement by virtue of an ex parte freezing order (attachment) or else by a normal summons to pay.

The Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA) allows the initiation of debt enforcement proceedings before a court becomes involved. A creditor can request the competent debt enforcement office (normally at the domicile of the debtor) to issue a payment order to the debtor. The office serves that payment order without verifying the existence and enforceability of the purported claim; however, the debtor may declare its objection, within 10 days, to the debt enforcement office.