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.
Two companies showed interest in the assets of a third company that was in a state of bankruptcy.
The current economic recession has been particularly acute in one of the pillars of the national economy, the construction and real-estate sector. This sector, which had already been undergoing a slowdown in recent years following the so-called “real-estate boom”, now stands in a profound and particular crisis with sales coming to a standstill, caused not only by the overall market situation, but mainly due to the restrictions placed by banks on loans, which are putting an economic brake on entrepreneurs.
The object of this article is to analyze a controversial issue which is considered in recent times by the Mercantile Courts as a current incident involved in the Bankruptcy Proceedings and more specifically, to analyze the Judgement issued by the Court of First Instance no. 9 and Mercantile Court of Cordoba dated April, 19th 2010, in which the aforementioned incident is involved.
This incident is essentially based on establishing the treatment that should be granted to the additional guarantees provided by third parties in bankruptcy proceedings.
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.
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.
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.