Update unseres Leitfadens zum Umgang mit Materialkostenerhöhungen und Lieferverzögerungen

Die aktuelle Entwicklung bei Baukosten und Materiallieferungen

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

Since the fourth quarter of 2020, prices for building materials have risen sharply. According to media reports, the price of wood alone increased by 15-20 %, whilst prices for petroleum products and diesel fuel rose by 15 % and 20 % respectively. Styropor insulation materials for facades also cost about 25 % more than in December. Reinforced steel has become 30 % more expensive since September.

Wie Bauunternehmen und Bauherren vorbeugen können

Seit dem vierten Quartal 2020 sind die Preise für Baustoffe stark angezogen. Medienberichten zufolge verteuerte sich allein der Preis für Holz um 15-20 %, der Preis für Mineralölerzeugnisse steigerte sich um 15 %, für Dieselkraftstoffe um 20 %. EPS-Dämmstoffe für Fassaden kosten sogar rund 25 % mehr, als dies noch im Dezember der Fall war. Betonstahl ist seit September nochmals um 30 % teurer geworden.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.