In a recent ruling, the Austrian Supreme Court has defined de facto managing directors and their obligations and liabilities in connection to wrongful trading.

The decision

The key takeaways from the ruling are:

Executive Summary

Austria is gearing up to implement the EU Directive on Restructuring and Insolvency (known as the Restructuring Directive). We anticipate that the Restructuring Regulation (ReO) will enter into force on 17 July 2021.

The core element of the Restructuring Directive (and of the implementing law) is the promotion of a new restructuring procedure, to avoid the need for formal insolvency proceedings.

The restructuring proceedings

Introduction

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.

Austria is moving forward with plans to implement the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks. The draft new law implementing the changes was published in February 2021.

The focus of the draft law is to introduce preventive restructuring proceedings. This will provide a structure for pre-insolvency restructuring to allow for the cram-down of dissenting creditors provided certain conditions are met.

Key points of the current draft

Worum geht es?

Das derzeit in der Begutachtungsphase befindliche Restrukturierungs- und Insolvenz Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz (RIRL-UG) soll, wie auch der Name schon andeutet, die EU-Richtlinie über Restrukturierung und Insolvenz (kurz zumeist nur Restrukturierungsrichtlinie genannt) in Österreich umsetzen.

Kernelement der Restrukturierungsrichtlinie und damit auch des geplanten Umsetzungsgesetzes, das Restrukturierungsordnung (ReO) heißen soll, ist eine dem Insolvenzverfahren vorgelagerte präventive Restrukturierung.

While there has been much fuss over the recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation¹ due to its potential ramifications for director liability, as we explored in Part I of our series on this case here, court watchers have paid less attention to the court’s treatment of officer liability and the interes

Introduction

A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”¹ Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation² breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.