The manufacturing sector in Germany is currently being hit hard. The reasons are massive increases in material prices and energy costs due to the indirect consequences of the Corona pandemic, disrupted supply chains and the Ukraine war. As a consequence of the economic crisis and insolvency of an important customer, Berner GmbH, based in Osnabrück, decided to continue its restructuring course within the framework of a petition filed on 23.03.2023 with the competent Osnabrück Local Court for the initiation of insolvency proceedings in self -administration.

Das produzierende Gewerbe in Deutschland wird derzeit erheblich in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Grund sind massive Materialpreis- und Energiekostenerhöhungen aufgrund der mittelbaren Folgen der Corona-Pandemie, gestörten Lieferketten und dem Ukrainekrieg. Als Folge der Wirtschaftskrise sowie der Insolvenz eines bedeutenden Kunden hat sich auch die in Osnabrück ansässige Berner GmbH entschieden, ihren Restrukturierungskurs im Rahmen eines am 23.03.2023 beim zuständigen Amtsgericht in Osnabrück gestellten Antrages auf Einleitung eines Insolvenzverfahrens in Eigenverwaltung fortzusetzen.

Die produzierende Industrie in Deutschland wird derzeit durch massive Materialpreis- und Energiekostenerhöhungen aufgrund der mittelbaren Folgen der Corona-Pandemie, gestörten Lieferketten und dem Ukrainekrieg erheblich in Mitleidenschaft gezogen.

The manufacturing industry in Germany is currently being severely affected by massive increases in material prices and energy costs due to the indirect consequences of the Corona pandemic, disrupted supply chains and the Ukraine war.

On 1 January 2021, the StaRUG, which goes back to an EU directive, came into force and wants to provide a `second chance for businesses. The abbreviation stands for 'Unternehmensstabilisierungs- und –restrukturierungsgesetz' ('Corporate Stabilisation and Restructuring Act').

With this overview, we want to provide you with a high-level overview of the StaRUG on the following main issues:

Content:

The Second Circuit issued its much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., holding that “Section 316(b) prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms.” At issue is whether the phrase “right . . . to receive payment” forecloses “more than formal amendments to payment terms that eliminate the right to sue for payment.” The Second Circuit held that it does not.

Since Marblegate was decided in 2014, the only court to address claims under §316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in the context of a corporate restructuring transaction is

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp. on May 12, 2016. One might have thought from the courtroom’s overflow crowd that it was the opening argument in a mob trial, but this is a case about a bond indenture. At issue is whether an out-of-court debt restructuring that did not amend the indenture’s principal and interest terms, but that effectively precluded the noteholders’ ability to be repaid, violated § 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).