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:

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

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.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2021), the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Reversing the Seventh Circuit and resolving a split among the circuits, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14, 2021 “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”

Bankruptcy experts are applauding a proposed change to the Paycheck Protection Program that will allow small business debtors to access loans under federal COVID-19 relief packages, correcting what they say was a mistake in early versions of the aid program that left bankrupt companies without a valuable tool for surviving the pandemic.

On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act on March 27 was the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. Under the program, small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 500 employees) — and certain other businesses in specific industries — are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the program, including applying at least 75% of the funds received from the loans to payment of payroll expenses.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion on December 24, 2019, In re Homebanc Mortgage Crop., No. 18-2887, 2019 WL 7161215(3rd Cir. De. 24, 2019) that has significant consequences for participants in repurchases transactions. The court affirmed the lower court judgment, that the securities had been liquidated in good faith.

Facts