This article continues our Law-Now series "Harmonisation of Insolvency Laws in the EU" in which we provide an overview of the articles addressing insolvency avoidance actions of the draft EU directive.
As explained in the first part of the series, the differing national insolvency regulations of the 27 EU member states creates risks for investors, who will have to consider their investments in light of possible business failures and the resulting exposure to monetary losses.
Muss die Geschäftsführung in der Krise die Belange der Gläubiger stets vorrangig vor den Gesellschafterinteressen („shift of fiduciary duties“) behandeln?
Der Aufsichtsrat ist ein Kontrollorgan. Er überwacht die Geschäftsführung. Unterlaufen ihm Fehler, haften die Mitglieder des Aufsichtsrats persönlich.
Aufsichtsräte gibt es in deutschen Unternehmen seit über 150 Jahren. Das Gesetz, betreffend die Kommanditgesellschaften auf Aktien und die Aktiengesellschaften vom 11. Juni 1870 bestimmte:
The Court heard argument in the case on December 4, 2023.
Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans
A debtor's non-exempt assets (and even the debtor's entire business) are commonly sold during the course of a bankruptcy case by the trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") as a means of augmenting the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of stakeholders or to fund distributions under, or implement, a chapter 9, 11, 12, or 13 plan.
In most cases seeking recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the foreign debtor's "foreign representative" has been appointed by the foreign court or administrative body overseeing the debtor's bankruptcy case.
The Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly authorize the equitable remedy of "substantive consolidation"—i.e., treating the assets and liabilities of two or more related entities as if they belonged to a single, consolidated bankruptcy estate. However, it is well recognized that a bankruptcy court has the authority to order such relief under appropriate circumstances in the exercise of its broad equitable powers when each of the original entities are already debtors subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Recent headlines have starkly illuminated the headwinds facing health care providers struggling to recover from a host of financial pressures. Many providers have resorted to filing for bankruptcy protection as a way, among other things, to right-size their balance sheets or effect a sale of their assets or businesses.
Bankruptcy and appellate courts disagree over the standard that should apply to a request for payment of a break-up fee or expense reimbursement to the losing bidder in a sale of assets outside the ordinary course of the debtor's business. Some apply a "business judgment" standard, while others require that the proposed payments satisfy the more rigorous standard applied to administrative expense claims.
Section 1124(2) of the Bankruptcy Code gives chapter 11 debtors a valuable tool for use in situations where long-term prepetition debt carries a significantly lower interest rate than the rates available at the time of emergence from bankruptcy. Under this section, in a chapter 11 plan, the debtor can "cure" any defaults under the relevant agreement and "reinstate" the maturity date and other terms of the original agreement, thus enabling the debtor to "lock in" a favorable interest rate in a prepetition loan agreement upon bankruptcy emergence.