Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht, Lockerung der Zahlungsverbote, Einschränkung der Insolvenzanfechtung, Ausschluss der Kündigung von Miet- und Pachtverhältnissen sowie Verbraucherdarlehensverträgen, Moratorium zu Gunsten von Verbrauchern und Kleinstunternehmen betreffend wesentlicher Dauerschuldverhältnisse, weitere Regelungen

Germany has notoriously broad voidability laws. As a rule of thumb, any payment by a third party has high voidability risks if the third party has no obligation to make the payment under the contract. Such payments qualify as incongruent (3 months hardening period, very few further requirements) and often qualify as gratuitous (4 years hardening period, without any further requirements). A recent decision of the German High Court has stirred hope that the Court may give some leeway to cash pool payments by group companies.

At first blush, it may seem counterintuitive for financiers to compete to provide loans to debtor companies that have just filed for protection under an insolvency or restructuring procedure, but they have been proven to do so on a large scale in US Chapter 11 cases and for a variety of reasons, whether to protect an existing loan position or taking an opportunity to garner significant, safe returns as a new lender.

In In re KB Toys Inc.,¹ the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the holdings of the lower courts that claims subject to disallowance under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are “similarly disallowable in the hands of the subsequent transferee.” According to the Third Circuit, when a creditor owes property to the estate, until that property is returned to the estate, that creditor’s claim, regardless of who holds it, is impaired, and the subsequent sale of that c

On April 16, 2013, in Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.),¹ the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision informing fundamental concepts of cross-border insolvency law as implemented pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On May 4, 2012, the Delaware bankruptcy court inIn re KB Toys, Inc., et al. (KB Toys), handed down a thoughtful decision addressing the issue of whether impairments attach to a claim or remain with its seller. The KB Toys court held that “a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant. Disabilities attach to and travel with the claim.”

In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.¹ If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently issued an opinion in In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC¹ in which it found, among other things, that the assignment of voting rights from a junior creditor to a senior creditor pursuant to an intercreditor agreement was unenforceable. The opinion was rendered in connection with the court’s decision to confirm the plan proposed by the debtor, the owner of the W Hotel in Boston.

Background

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

In a decision that will be of great interest to the creditor community, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, on November 5, 2009, that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys’ fees that was authorized under a valid prepetition contract. The case, Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland,1 extends and clarifies the US Supreme Court’s March 2007 decision in the Travelers case,2 which opened the door for such a ruling.