Resumen: Mecanismo preconcursal para empresas en situación de insolvencia y que permite evitar la tramitación de concursos sin incurrir en responsabilidades los administradores societarios. Así mismo, instrumento necesario para conseguir el Beneficio de Exoneración de Pasivos Insatisfechos en caso de deudores personas físicas“.

El Tribunal Supremo desestima, en su sentencia de 13 de marzo de 2017, el recurso de casación presentado por una sociedad en concurso de acreedores que pretendía el pago por parte de una sociedad a la que había transmitido ciertos activos durante el concurso, de la cantidad que se acordó retener por las partes en concepto de gastos a cargo del vendedor, argumentando que no se admite en sede de concurso la compensación de créditos (ex. art. 58 LC, que proscribe la compensación de los créditos concursales).

El Tribunal Supremo confirma que la atribución de un privilegio especial, en caso de créditos garantizados con prenda sobre derechos de crédito futuros, depende de que la relación de la que emana el crédito ofrecido en garantía existiera antes de la declaración de concurso.

A continuación vamos a explorar diversos problemas que se plantean a propósito del apartado 9 de la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal, cuando existen garantes personales (o garantes reales por deuda ajena) en un proceso de refinanciación homologable por dicha disposición.

1. El crédito contingente contra el garante que refinancia por la disposición adicional 4.ª

​Directors do not need to consider creditors’ interests when determining the fairness of their own remuneration, even after the company has become insolvent, the Court of Appeal has found.

The facts

The Companies Act 1993 requires that directors who vote to authorise director remuneration must sign a certificate stating that, in their opinion, the payment is fair to the company and setting out the grounds for that opinion.

Mr and Ms Moncur were the sole directors and effective owners of Monocrane NZ (Monocrane). Following their separation, they entered into a relationship property agreement under which Mr Moncur assumed full ownership and control of Monocrane, including agreeing to assume sole responsibility for the overdrawn shareholders' current account. In return, Ms Moncur agreed to resign her directorship, transfer her shares to Mr Moncur and pay various joint debts.

Mr Kamal was appointed as liquidator of two companies of which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was a creditor.  The CIR applied to the High Court for orders under section 286(5) of the Companies Act 1993 prohibiting Mr Kamal from acting as a company liquidator for a period of up to five years.

In CIR v Kamal [2016] NZHC 1053 the CIR sought the orders on the basis that Mr Kamal was guilty of a continuing breach of his duties as a liquidator that made him unfit to act as a liquidator because:

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.

In Ebert Construction Ltd v Sanson [2016] NZHC 472, the High Court awarded costs to liquidators after a statutory demand issued by the liquidators had been set aside by consent.  The reasons were as follows:

The Supreme Court has recently denied leave to appeal a judgment concerning the application of the continuing business relationship to voidable transactions under section 292(4B) of the Companies Act 1993.