In StaRUG-Verfahren gehen oftmals Gesellschafterstreitigkeiten voraus oder entstehen im Laufe der Sanierung.

Ein Überblick über Inhalt und Anforderungen der planergänzenden Sanierungsinstrumente des StaRUG zum zielgerichteten Einsatz in der Praxis.

Dieser erste Beitrag der Blogserie StaRUG gibt einen Überblick über die Chancen und Schwierigkeiten bei der Anwendung des StaRUG in der Praxis.

Seit 9. November 2022 ist das SanInsKG mit (scheinbaren) Erleichterungen im Zusammenhang mit der Insolvenzantragspflicht und dem Prognosezeitraum in Kraft.

Das „Sanierungs- und insolvenzrechtliches Krisenfolgenabmilderungsgesetz“ (SanInsKG) hat die Regeln für die Fortbestehensprognose bei Überschuldung geändert, insbesondere den Prognosezeitraum nach § 19 Abs. 2 InsO bis zum 31. Dezember 2023 von zwölf auf vier Monate verkürzt.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.