Background

Seit dem 1. März 2020 ausgereichte Darlehen unterliegen dank neuer Gesetzgebung Privilegierungen im Hinblick auf insolvenzrechtliche Anfechtungs- und Haftungstatbestände.

Am 27. März 2020 wurde das Gesetz zur vorübergehenden Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht und zur Begrenzung der Organhaftung bei einer durch die COVID-19-Pandemie bedingten Insolvenz (COVID-19-Insolvenzaussetzungsgesetz – COVInsAG) verkündet. Dieses trat rückwirkend zum 1. März 2020 in Kraft.

Unternehmen, die aufgrund der Corona-Krise Liquiditätsprobleme entwickeln, sollen auf staatliche Finanzierungshilfen zurückgreifen können. Die Bundesregierung hat diesbezüglich ein Schutzschild beschlossen, der die Unternehmen mittels Kostensenkungen (durch arbeits-, steuer-, und sozialrechtliche Maßnahmen) sowie kurzfristiger Darlehen in der Krise stabilisieren soll. Weitere Maßnahmen werden derzeit zusätzlich auf Länderebene entwickelt.

German insolvency proceedings expose company directors to high risks of personal liability. Claims brought on the basis of sec. 92(2), 93(3) German Companies Act (Aktiengesetz, AktG) and sec. 64 German Limited Liability Companies Act can have disastrous financial consequences. Damages can be in the millions. Therefore many company directors purchase directors’ and officers’ liability insurances (D&O insurance) to protect their personal assets.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

A German insolvency administrator represented by Taylor Wessing claims back fees amounting to € 4.5 million from a leading German law firm paid by the insolvent company for restructuring advice. The claim is based on German rescission law.