Rettung durch Restrukturierung im Planverfahren (Restrukturierungsplan & Insolvenzplan)

Die enormen wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der weltweiten COVID-19-Pandemie haben die deutsche Wirtschaft in vielen Bereichen massiv getroffen. Für viele Branchen hat sich das Geschäftsklima erheblich verschlechtert. Geschäfte bleiben geschlossen, Lieferketten brechen ab, Reisen sind nur sehr eingeschränkt möglich, Umsätze sind deutlich zurückgegangen und Unternehmen müssen Kurzarbeit oder Zwangsurlaubeinführen, um laufende Kosten zu senken.

Die enormen wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der weltweiten COVID-19-Pandemie haben die deutsche Wirtschaft massiv getroffen. Für viele Branchen hat sich das Geschäftsklima erheblich verschlechtert.

The huge economic impact of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has long since reached the German economy. For many industries, the business climate has deteriorated massively. Stores remain closed, supply chains are affected, customer numbers have significantly dropped and businesses have to impose reduced work hours (Kurzarbeit) or forced leave to reduce costs.

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.