A declaration of bankruptcy, according to Article 645 of the Commercial Transactions Law, can be imposed on any trader who ceases to pay some or all of its commercial debts. While a debtor’s cessation of payment is a presumption against him, the trader might not be considered bankrupt if the failure to pay is due to a dispute regarding the debt. In other words, it is important to prove that the debtor ceased to pay a certain commercial debt due to financial distress and credit issues.
The October 15, 2009 decision of the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re Pillowtex opens the door for creditors in the Third Circuit to increase their "new value" preference defense under the "subsequent advance" approach.In re Pillowtex, No. 03-12339 (Bankr. D. Del. filed Oct. 15, 2009).
A trustee’s power to avoid preference payments is circumscribed by the statutory defenses set forth in section 547(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. The "subsequent new value" defense set forth in section 547(c)(4) has three well-established elements:
In the fourth quarter of 2008, global credit markets were virtually frozen, leading many distressed businesses and their constituents to take measures to avoid bankruptcy filings at almost all costs. Without access to debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, bankruptcy most often results in liquidation – and with lenders reluctant to provide new money, even in exchange for superpriority and/or priming liens, total collapse became an increasingly common result.
Although courts are generally reluctant to equitably subordinate claims of non-insiders, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana recently did just that to the claims of a non-insider lender based on overreaching and self-serving conduct in Credit Suisse v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In Re Yellowstone Mt. Club, LLC), Case No. 08-61570-11, Adv. No. 09-00014 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 13, 2009).
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 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.
The Ruling
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Chamber One, Number 134/2016, 04 March
On 1 April 2015, responsibility for consumer credit in the UK transferred from the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) to the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). A consequence of this was to replace the OFT’s Consumer Credit Act licencing scheme with the FCA’s authorisation scheme under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).