Was ist zu beachten?

Die Pandemie trifft die Wirtschaft mit voller Wucht und ein Ende ist weiterhin nicht absehbar. Um eine ungeordnete Insolvenzwelle zu vermeiden, hat der Gesetzgeber schnell reagiert und mit dem am 27. März 2020 in Kraft getretenen COVID-19-Insolvenz-Aussetzungsgesetz (COVInsAG) die Insolvenzantragspflicht zunächst bis zum 30. September 2020 suspendiert. Per Verordnung kann die Suspendierung bis zum 31. März 2021 verlängert werden.

Die Hotelindustrie gehört zu den Branchen, die von der Corona-Krise am schwersten getroffen werden. Mitunter geht es um das schlichte Überleben der betroffenen Unternehmen. Wir möchten Ihnen in einem interdisziplinären Webinar einige der drängendsten Fragen beantworten, die Ihnen helfen sollen, durch diese herausfordernde Zeit durchzukommen.

Folgende Themen stehen im Fokus des Webinars:

The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements — through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated — was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.

On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.

On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision holding that “impairment” under a plan of reorganization does not arise even if a creditor is paid less than it would be entitled to under its contract, so long as the reduced recovery is due to the plan’s incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code’s disallowance provisions.

Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.

On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

The German Federal Court of Justice has tightened its grip on company directors again. In a recent judgment on directors’ liability in insolvency situations, the Court clarified the scope of sections 60- 61 of the German Insolvency Act.