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.

Executive Summary

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, In re Care Ctrs., LLC, No. 18-33967, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3205 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2020), examined (1) the scope of bankruptcy court subject-matter jurisdiction for post-confirmation actions filed in state court and removed to bankruptcy court; and (2) when the court must or should abstain and remand a proceeding back to the court where the action was originally brought.

OVERVIEW

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.

I. Introduction

Due to the current corona crisis and the therewith associated tense economic situation, many managing directors (Geschäftsführer) are faced with the question of a possible, punitive obligation to file for insolvency as well as other duties that must be observed in the context of a crisis.

The following provides an overview of the obligation to file for insolvency, payment prohibitions in a crisis as well as the facilitations introduced under the German COVID-19 legislation.

With unanimous vote, the German Parliament passed the Law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil, criminal and insolvency law. This new law brings with it several (temporary) changes of law all of which aim at mitigating the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in both private and business life. Inter alia, the following provisions have been implemented:

1. Suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency

On Monday, 16 March 2020, the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz) announced that they are working on a legislative provision according to which the obligation to file for insolvency within three weeks following the occurrence of a reason for insolvency (i.e. illiquidity or over-indebtedness) would be suspended for such entities which face liquidity issues due to the Corona (COVID-19) pandemic.

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.