Restrukturierungen erfolgreich meistern durch Unterstützung eines Sanierungsmoderators.
Seit Inkrafttreten des Gesetzes über den Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen für Unternehmen (StaRUG) zum 1. Januar 2021 steht Unternehmen die Restrukturierung mithilfe einer sogenannten Sanierungsmoderation offen. Es handelt sich dabei um eine Restrukturierungsmöglichkeit in einem formalisierten Verfahren außerhalb eines Insolvenzverfahrens.
Der Insolvenzverwalter ist vielen steuerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen ausgesetzt, deren Vernachlässigung erhebliche Sanktionen auslösen können.
(Moderate) Verschärfung der Haftung für Geschäftsleiter durch das StaRUG.
Am 17. Dezember 2020 hatte der Bundestag das Gesetz zur Fortentwicklung des Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrechts (SanInsFoG) beschlossen. Zentraler Bestandteil des SanInsFoG sind die Vorschriften des Gesetzes über den Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen (StaRUG).
Aktuelle Rspr. des BGH zur Hinweis- und Warnpflicht eines Rechtsberaters bei möglichem Insolvenzgrund.
Der BGH festigt und erweitert seine Rechtsprechung zum Kleinbeteiligtenprivileg im Kontext der insolvenzrechtlichen Anfechtung nach § 135 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 InsO.
One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.
How does it happen?
As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.
When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.
What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia declined to annul a bankruptcy in circumstances where the bankrupt claimed the proceedings should have been adjourned given his incarceration and solvency at the time the order was made: Mehajer v Weston in his Capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713. The judgment is useful in reiterating what factors the Court will consider when deciding whether to order an annulment under section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act).