In the current climate, the demand for jobs substantially exceeds the supply. Even so, for employers it can still be difficult to find a quality employee who meets the specific requirements for the given job. Once a suitable employee is found for the vacant position, they complete the usual formalities – submitting documents on their education, health and evidence of criminal records, agree with the employer on wages and other conditions of the employment and sign the labor contract.

The matter subject to this analysis is decision taken by a Bankruptcy Administration dealing with three companies of the same company group which are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. Given the situation and in response of the confusing information of assets, the Administration under discussion decided to gather the three companies joining all their creditors in a sole debt pooling and besides, joining all the rights and assets of the three companies.  

Following the latest reform of the Bankruptcy Act, the Spanish Tax Authorities have established a mechanism to ensure the collection of the applicable VAT in the acquisition of property from companies declared bankrupt.

Until 1 January 2012, Article 84 of the VAT Act 37/1992, when regulating the reversal cases of the taxpayer liable for this tax, no reference is made to companies declared bankrupt and the cases of their goods being acquired. However, this situation has changed since 1 January 2012.

The term “frenemy” – a combination of the words friend and enemy – has emerged from modern vernacular to describe someone who is simultaneously a partner and an adversary. The term is perhaps perfectly emblematic of the restructuring process where various constituents make and break alliances in an effort to steer the restructuring process. In so doing, the lines between friend and enemy are often blurred or altered during the course of the restructuring.

A popular line of thinking among bankruptcy practitioners and commentators holds that substantive consolidation – the combining of assets and liabilities of a debtor and another debtor or non-debtor entity to satisfy creditor claims against both entities ratably from the resulting pool – is an equitable remedy of judicial invention with no specific foundation in the Bankruptcy Code.

The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the status of contingent assets within the balance sheet test for insolvency in the context of a company’s inability to pay its debts. Under Section 123 Insolvency Act 1986, a company is deemed unable to pay its debts if its assets are less than its liabilities including contingent liabilities but nothing is said about the status of contingent assets.

As a part of our continuing coverage of the 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations of the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, we’ve reported on a number of the Commission’s proposed revisions and reforms to the Bankruptcy Code, many of which (i.e., systemically important financial institutions, cross-border cases, DIP financing, etc.) primarily impact the traditional big players i

Valuation is a critical and indispensable part of the bankruptcy process. How collateral and other estate assets (and even creditor claims) are valued will determine a wide range of issues, from a secured creditor’s right to adequate protection, post-petition interest, or relief from the automatic stay to a proposed chapter 11 plan’s satisfaction of the “best interests” test or whether a “cram-down” plan can be confirmed despite the objections of dissenting creditors.

In a judgment of November 29, 2007 that is of particular interest to financial institutions involved in asset-based lending, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) allayed concerns that a global assignment (Globalzession)—the assignment of all existing and future trade receivables to a lender to secure loans—would not survive the insolvency of the respective originator.[1] This decision was eagerly awaited because various judgments of German Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte) had raised concerns lately that the security interest over receivables created in the last th