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.

Introduction

Execution and Bankruptcy Law (“EBL”) enables a company in financial difficulty to propose a composition to its creditors to restructure its debts. However, EBL only provides formal proceedings and does not provide out of court workouts. As a result, courts do not have the authority to order a creditor to cooperate with an informal composition. Therefore there is a lack of safeguards in favour of debtors with regards to any informal composition proceedings under the current legislation.

In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

On 17 September, the Pension Regulator's Determinations Panel announced that it had issued a determination that six companies within the Lehman Brothers group (including the group's main operating companies in the UK as well as the US parent Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.) should provide financial support to the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme. This followed a hearing on 8-9 September 2010.

Following consultation last autumn, the Government is once again changing the Regulations under s75 Pensions Act 1995.

The changes1 take effect on 6 April 2010. They are intended to facilitate corporate restructurings. They also address some minor technical issues. The Government has postponed any more fundamental rewriting of the Regulations, saying that “this is a complex area that deserves closer consideration”.

Restructurings

You might wonder whether lenders can enforce a guaranty of a loan from an individual or entity that has no formal connection with the borrower, i.e. someone who is not an owner or affiliated company. Generally, the answer is yes with some qualifications for potentially insolvent guarantors discussed below. However, lenders are well-advised to take the steps outlined at the end of this post to minimize the risk of a subsequent challenge by the guarantor.

Late this summer, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, took on an issue of first impression – whether the fraud of one partner can be imputed to an “innocent” partner in order to render a judgment non-dischargeable.

1. Introduction

Congress enacted the current Bankruptcy Code, Sections 101 through 1502 of Title Eleven of the United States Code (as amended, the “Bankruptcy Code”), in 1978, and it took effect late in 1979. Many important federal environmental statutes were enacted around the same time, e.g., Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. Thus, Congress did not fully consider environmental liability schemes when it created the bankruptcy code.

WHITELY v. MORAVEC (February 16, 2011)