Die §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG: Eigenständiger Regelungsinhalt oder lediglich klarstellender Charakter? Wir klären auf!
Die EU-Richtlinie über Restrukturierung und Insolvenz (Restrukturierungsrichtlinie) enthält in Kapitel 4 (Art. 17, 18) besondere Vorschriften zur Insolvenzanfechtung. Diese hat der deutsche Gesetzgeber mit den §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG in nationales Recht umgesetzt. Daher lohnt sich ein vertiefter Blick auf diese Vorschriften.
Richtliniengeber möchte Finanzierungen und Zwischenfinanzierungen schützen
Insbesondere in Restrukturierungsfällen kann es erforderlich sein, einzelne Konzerngesellschaften abzuwickeln. Hierbei sind einige Besonderheiten zu beachten.
Das StaRUG hat das deutsche Sanierungsrecht ergänzt. Der neu eingeführte Restrukturierungsbeauftragte kann dabei als Moderator der Sanierung fungieren.
Ein Verständnis für die Rolle des Restrukturierungsbeauftragten* erfordert einen Blick auf den Ursprung und das Ziel des StaRUG. Es wurde geschaffen, um Unternehmen präventive Instrumente zur Verfügung zu stellen, die frühzeitigere Restrukturierungen außerhalb eines Insolvenzverfahrens ermöglichen.
Das StaRUG und der Restrukturierungsbeauftragte
Insolvency creditors in Germany do not have much to fear from a harmonisation of avoidance actions in the EU. They are used to rigid statutory provisions.
Die Schlussabrechnungsfrist für viele Coronahilfen läuft am 31. Oktober 2023 ab. Es lohnt die Krisenfrüherkennung mittels rollierender Liquiditätsplanung.
On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.
On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.
On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.
In a recent decision, the German Federal Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the Business Judgement Rule to insolvency administrators in Germany and rejected the applicability of the rule in the specific case that was argued before it.
On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.