Aufgrund der aktuellen Situation sollten Unternehmen ihre Geschäftspartner im Blick behalten, um zu verhindern, dass deren finanzielle Krise zur eigenen wird.

Die Krise von Geschäftspartnern* kann schon vor der Insolvenz unmittelbar wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen auf den eigenen Geschäftsbetrieb haben, wenn Leistungen nicht mehr oder nur unzureichend erbracht oder Rechnungen nicht mehr bezahlt werden.

Die Immobilienbranche steht aktuell vor großen Herausforderungen: Explodierende Baustoffpreise, hohe Inflation, etc. vergrößern die wirtschaftlichen Risiken.

Die Immobilienbranche gilt als eine der akuten Krisenbranchen in Deutschland. Die Corona-Pandemie, der Ukraine-Krieg, die Inflation und die Zinswende haben zu einem Einbruch der Bauaufträge, der Flächennachfrage und der Immobilienpreise geführt. Die Baukosten sind enorm gestiegen, während die Investoren* zurückhaltender geworden sind.

Immobilienkrise in Zahlen

Seit 9. November 2022 ist das SanInsKG mit (scheinbaren) Erleichterungen im Zusammenhang mit der Insolvenzantragspflicht und dem Prognosezeitraum in Kraft.

Das „Sanierungs- und insolvenzrechtliches Krisenfolgenabmilderungsgesetz“ (SanInsKG) hat die Regeln für die Fortbestehensprognose bei Überschuldung geändert, insbesondere den Prognosezeitraum nach § 19 Abs. 2 InsO bis zum 31. Dezember 2023 von zwölf auf vier Monate verkürzt.

Aktuelle Rspr. des BGH zur Hinweis- und Warnpflicht eines Rechtsberaters bei möglichem Insolvenzgrund.

The finality of asset sales and other transactions in bankruptcy is an indispensable feature of U.S. bankruptcy law designed to maximize the value of a bankruptcy estate as expeditiously as possible for the benefit of all stakeholders. To promote such finality, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits reversal or modification on appeal of an order authorizing a sale or lease to a "good-faith" purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending appeal. What constitutes "good faith" has sometimes been disputed by the courts.

Since May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued three decisions addressing or potentially impacting issues of bankruptcy law. These included rulings concerning the abrogation of sovereign immunity for Native American tribes under the Bankruptcy Code, and for instrumentalities of Puerto Rico under a similar statute enacted in 2016 allowing the Commonwealth to restructure its debts. The Court also handed down an opinion concerning a homeowner's entitlement to the surplus proceeds of a real estate tax foreclosure sale.

Whether a dispute that is subject to arbitration can or must be referred to arbitration after one of the parties to a prepetition arbitration agreement files for bankruptcy has long been a source of disagreement among bankruptcy and appellate courts due to a perceived conflict between the Federal Arbitration Act and the Bankruptcy Code. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently provided some useful guidance regarding this issue.

To prevent "trafficking in corporate shells," the Bankruptcy Code prohibits any discharge of corporate or partnership debts if the debtor is not an "individual" and, in a chapter 11 case, if the debtor proposes a liquidating chapter 11 plan contemplating the cessation of the debtor's business following confirmation.

A bankruptcy trustee's ability to avoid and recover pre-bankruptcy preferential transfers is essential to preserving or augmenting the estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. In 2019, however, the Bankruptcy Code was amended to add a due diligence requirement to the Bankruptcy Code's preference avoidance provision, apparently as a way to minimize the volume of speculative and coercive preference litigation.

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions to creditors in a "structured dismissal" of a chapter 11 case that violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules without the consent of creditors. However, because the Court declined to express any "view about the legality of structured dismissals in general," many open questions remain regarding the structured dismissal mechanism.