When an employer is insolvent and administrators appointed, job losses are often an inevitable consequence. In this blog we look at the legal obligations arising where redundancies meet the threshold for collective consultation, and the implications for administrators arising out of the recent Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another.
When does the legal obligation to collectively consult apply?
In den letzten Wochen haben in Deutschland zwei größere Betreiber der stationären Pflege und von betreutem Wohnen Insolvenz angemeldet. Auch wenn dies aus unserer Sicht nur Einzelfälle sind und kein Krankheitssyndrom der Pflegebranche darstellt, geben diese Fälle Anlass für eine kurze rechtliche Orientierung wie sich solche Insolvenzen auf alle Leistungsbeziehungen auswirken.
Auswirkungen auf Miet- und Pachtverhältnisse
Die anhaltenden Auswirkungen der Covid-19-Pandemie auf die Hotelbranche und eine mögliche Restrukturierungsoption
Über zwei Jahre nach Ausbruch der Covid-19-Pandemie sind deren Auswirkungen auf die deutsche Wirtschaft immer noch deutlich spürbar. Insbesondere die Hotelbranche ist von der sogenannten 4. Welle, den derzeitigen Rekordinzidenzen sowie den damit verbundenen staatlich angeordneten Einschränkungen wie 2G (Plus)- bzw. 3G-Regelungen weiterhin stark betroffen.
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
On 24 February, the Government published draft regulations that, if implemented, will impose new restrictions on pre-pack administration sales to connected parties. For all `substantial disposals' (which will include `pre-pack' sales) to connected parties, taking place within eight weeks of the administrators' appointment, the administrators will either need creditor consent or a report from an independent `evaluator'.
Context
Rettung durch Restrukturierung im Planverfahren (Restrukturierungsplan & Insolvenzplan)
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?
As reported earlier, a new corporate restructuring law will be enacted in Germany. The new law's centerpiece will be the so-called stabilization and restructuring framework ("SRF"). The German Parliament (the Bundestag) passed the law on 17 December 2020. On 18 December 2020 the law was also accepted by the Federal Council (the Bundesrat). It will come into force on 1 January 2021, already.