The Court of Appeal in Madsen-Ries v Petera considered the reasonableness of directors' remuneration in circumstances when a company is in a dire financial position. Mr and Mrs Petera, directors of a failed transport business, were asked by the liquidators to repay the salaries they declared for tax purposes, because they had not complied with the certification requirements under section 161 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act), being to satisfy themselves on reasonable grounds that the payments were fair to the company.
El Tribunal Supremo rechaza el ejercicio de las acciones rescisorias especiales del Derecho concursal contra una escisión de sociedades inscrita en el Registro Mercantil, y afirma que la protección de los acreedores debe realizarse por vía resarcitoria.
Year in Review – Derecho Español en 2016
En los últimos meses se han sucedido en España dos procesos de elecciones generales y las distintas fuerzas políticas no han llegado a un acuerdo para formar gobierno hasta octubre de 2016. Lo anterior ha supuesto una ralentización importante de la actividad legislativa. Destacamos a continuación las principales novedades normativas y jurisprudenciales de 2016:
Year in Review – Spanish Law in 2016
Two general elections were held in Spain recently (the first in December 2015) and the various political parties were unable to reach an agreement to form a government until October 2016. This meant a major slowdown in law-making activity. The following are the main legislative changes and case-law precedents from 2016:
La Dirección General de Tributos examina, en un contexto de consolidación fiscal, las consecuencias fiscales de una operación en virtud de la cual la entidad dominante condona los créditos que tiene sobre sus filiales, derechos adquiridos previamente por medio de una operación de reestructuración empresarial no acogida al régimen de neutralidad fiscal y registrados por un valor inferior a su nominal.
Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 March 2016 (STS 151/2016)
The judgment of the Supreme Court analyses the objective scope of extension of the liability for obligations and debts for which, as appropriate, the director of a company should be liable and, more specifically, the scope of "the corporate obligations subsequent to the occurrence of the legal ground for dissolution".
The Supreme Court confirmed the lower-court judgments that had rescinded the payments made to the managing director through remuneration, as the bylaw requisite to create the right to receive it had not been met, as well as payments made to shareholders through dividends, differentiating between the resolution of the meeting to distribute dividends and the payment of these dividends.
The facts are as follows: an insolvency creditor challenged the decision of the administrator in bankruptcy of a company about not recognizing its credit. The credit derived from a guarantee granted to secure a promissory note from a company belonging to the group of the insolvent company.
The Supreme Court rules in a recent decision over different bankruptcy incidents. The first relates to a work contract to supply materials in which a penalty clause for late work is established, and the ability to execute the works under the guarantee provided in the contract if the contractor may not execute them. Having a delay in delivery of the work and having entrusted to another company the repair works, the owner claimed the payment of the amounts and compensation with the guarantee held.
Financial institutions are not de facto directors of the insolvent company because they do not significantly affect the performance of the insolvent company’s activity, but only ensure that certain costs do not affect the repayment of their loan.