In a previous article – “The application of competition is not only a right but an obligation,” speaking, within the bankruptcy proceeding, the debtor’s duty to apply for a declaration of bankruptcy within two months from the date on which knew or ought to know his state of insolvency. If the debtor is aware of his insolvency shall have the burden of applying for a declaration of bankruptcy in that period. If he were not aware of his condition, the rule means that the debtor’s insolvency automatically knows when any of the events occurred that were reviewed and are listed in art. 2.4 of the LC. Breach of the duty of the insolvent debtor to urge the contest is sanctioned by the presumption of the existence of malice or gross negligence in the generation or the worsening state of insolvency, unless proven otherwise, the presumption that, if not rebutted, will lead Contest qualifying as the culprit.

The score of the contest is that section of the required legal bankruptcy proceedings to establish the civil effects of the responsibility for the generation or aggravation of insolvency in which the bankrupt might have incurred, legal representatives and their managers.

The Bankruptcy Act distinguishes two classes of competition: Fortuitous or Guilty. The fortuitous concourse has no effect, so it is not even legally defined. However, the score of the competition as the culprit will occur when the insolvency has been generated or aggravated by malice or gross negligence by the debtor, or their legal representatives or, in case of legal person by its managers, or liquidators, “the law or fact. Practice occurs in some difficulty proving that the insolvency has been caused or aggravated by malice or gross negligence then to have to use the technical assumptions. We distinguish:

? The presumption “irrebuttable” contest guilty, that is, facts as simple competition necessarily leads to characterize the contest as the culprit.

? The presumptions “rebuttable” referred to events that lead to assume, unless proven otherwise, who attends the fraud or gross negligence in the creation or aggravation of their insolvency.

Some assumptions are true facts of competition guilty in the sense that their mere attendance will determine the rating of the competition as the culprit. These facts will be discussed particularly in a later article. Now, for the present case, we must focus on the facts leading to presume the guilt of the competition. As we have said, it is presumptions of fraud or gross negligence in the conduct of the bankrupt who has created or aggravated the insolvency (art. 165 LC). The effectiveness of these assumptions is limited to the concurrence of the element of intention or subjective, so it will be necessary to prove the generation or aggravation of the insolvency of the said persons.

Possibility Related Posts:

• Tips To Save On Your 2010 Tax Return
  Given that it is almost time for the Treasury accounts and present our income statement for the previous year, today I bring you 4 tips to save on the tax return. 4 Tips to save on the income state...
• Failure of Work and Personal Finance
  Incredibly Auque many people find it hard to say no more are embarrassed to tell people not asked anything. One of the main reasons why many people find it hard to say has nothing to do with the fac...