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.

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.

In a November 17, 2016 ruling likely to impact ongoing debt restructurings, pending bankruptcy proceedings and negotiations of new debt issuances, the Third Circuit recently overturned refusals by both the Delaware bankruptcy court and district court to enforce “make-whole” payments from Energy Futures Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, “EFIH”) to rule that the relevant indenture provisions supported the payments. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Now everything will be better! The new ESUG legislation which entered into force on 1 March 2012 has generated huge expectations. The somewhat unwieldy title of “Law for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Businesses” covers a raft of significant changes to the Insolvency Act and existing restructuring regulations. Its objectives are ambitious. The ESUG is intended to make business restructuring easier, more effective and faster – thus a press release from the Federal Ministry of Justice dated 23 February 2012.

On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision^[1]  in the much-watched litigation involving the residential construction company, TOUSA, Inc. ("TOUSA"). The decision reversed the prior decision of the District Court, ^[2] reinstating the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court.^[3]

Background

Indentures often contain make-whole premiums payable upon early redemption of the debt, and term B loan agreements often include "soft call" protection in the form of prepayment premiums during the early life of the loan. If the debt issuer becomes subject to a chapter 11 proceeding after the debt issuance, the question then arises as to how this payment obligation is to be treated: Does the make-whole or prepayment premium constitute unmatured interest due as a result of the debt acceleration, which would be disallowed, or is it liquidated damages?