Concedida una subvención pública, fue posteriormente anulada en vía administrativa, con resolución que obligaba a devolver su importe. Entretanto el beneficiario de la subvención había sido declarado en concurso. Las dos instancias judiciales entendieron que la deuda de restitución es una deuda de la masa, por haber tenido lugar su devengo después de la declaración de concurso.

Cuestión no resuelta —y generadora de dispares opiniones—, se afronta en esta nota cómo han de ser, o no, reconocidos en el quorum y en el voto de la disposición adicional cuarta de la Ley Concursal los acreedores condicionales y los litigiosos.

 Se examina, en concreto, el supuesto de que se acuerde el régimen de suspensión de facultades y la administración concursal decide no hacer operativa en la primera instancia la sustitución prevista en la ley.

1. Los hechos analizados por la STS 570/2018, de 15 de octubre (RJ 2018/4613) y el problema planteado

Los hechos relevantes son los siguientes:

En una reciente resolución, la DGRN trata de equilibrar el necesario rigor que debe presidir nuestro sistema registral con la adecuada agilidad y seguridad jurídica que requieren los adquirentes de bienes cuando se ha declarado la insolvencia.

La Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado (DGRN) ha relajado los requisitos de inscripción de los bienes adquiridos durante el procedimiento concursal y, señaladamente, durante la fase de liquidación. Así lo señala en una resolución de 24 de octubre de 2018.

In a judgment rendered in the case of 9210-6905 Québec Inc. (proposal of),1 the Superior Court of Québec held that an interim receiver is not required to obtain a clearance certificate from the tax authorities before proceeding with the distribution of a debtor's property, and is not subject to personal liability for this reason.

In its decision in The Queen v. Callidus Capital Corporation¹, rendered on August 17, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada examined, on a retrospective basis, the Crown's absolute priority regarding proceeds remitted to secured creditors from the assets of a tax debtor that are deemed to be held in trust (deemed trust) under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the "ETA") prior to such tax debtor's bankruptcy.

In Paul L. Schnier v. Her Majesty the Queen, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed the motion brought by the Respondent under Rule 53(3)(c) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) to quash the appeal on the basis that the Appellant, who was an undischarged bankrupt at the time of filing his Notice of Appeal, had failed to obtain permission of the trustee in bankruptcy at the outset to initiate the appeal.

In Paul L. Schnier v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1]  the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) dismissed a motion to quash an appeal brought on the basis that the appellant did not, as an undischarged bankrupt, have the capacity, pursuant to Section 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to deal with property, including the ability to bring an appeal. The Appellant believed he was required to file the appeal, but did not obtain the trustee in bankruptcy’s permission when he commenced the appeal.

This article has been contributed by Martin Desrosiers and Julien Morissette, partner and associate respectively, in the Insolvency & Restructuring Group of 

In a trust claim, it has become commonplace to seek a request for a declaration that, if there is judgment for breach of trust, the judgment will survive the subsequent bankruptcy of the judgment debtor. Will that request for relief ever be granted? This question was answered, in part, in B2B Bank v. Batson, a 2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision.

Background