A chapter 11 plan may be modified after votes have been solicited on the plan, but prior to confirmation, without providing creditors and interest holders with an amended disclosure statement and another opportunity to vote on the modified plan, provided, among other things, that the modifications do not adversely affect creditors or interest holders who previously voted to accept the plan.

A handful of recent high-profile court rulings have considered whether a chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan in accordance with the pre-Bankruptcy Code common law "solvent-debtor" exception requiring a solvent debtor to pay pendency interest to unsecured creditors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit weighed in on this question in In re LATAM Airlines Grp. S.A., 55 F.4th 377 (2d Cir. 2022).

Like debtors, bankruptcy trustees, official committees, examiners, and estate-compensated professionals, foreign representatives in chapter 15 cases have statutory reporting obligations to the bankruptcy court and other stakeholders as required by the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code. Such duties include the obligation to keep the U.S. bankruptcy court promptly informed of changes in either the status of the debtor's foreign bankruptcy case or the status of the foreign representative's appointment in that case. Furthermore, chapter 15 provides a U.S.

Exception from Discharge of Debts for Fraud Committed by Business Partner

On February 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 2023 WL 214441 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2023), where it resolved a circuit split in ruling that a debt based on fraud committed by, or a false representation made by, the debtor's partner or agent is nondischargeable in the debtor's bankruptcy case.

In In re Global Cord Blood Corp., 2022 WL 17478530 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied without prejudice a petition filed by the joint provisional liquidators for recognition of a "winding-up" proceeding commenced under Cayman Islands law.

The manufacturing sector in Germany is currently being hit hard. The reasons are massive increases in material prices and energy costs due to the indirect consequences of the Corona pandemic, disrupted supply chains and the Ukraine war. As a consequence of the economic crisis and insolvency of an important customer, Berner GmbH, based in Osnabrück, decided to continue its restructuring course within the framework of a petition filed on 23.03.2023 with the competent Osnabrück Local Court for the initiation of insolvency proceedings in self -administration.

Das produzierende Gewerbe in Deutschland wird derzeit erheblich in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Grund sind massive Materialpreis- und Energiekostenerhöhungen aufgrund der mittelbaren Folgen der Corona-Pandemie, gestörten Lieferketten und dem Ukrainekrieg. Als Folge der Wirtschaftskrise sowie der Insolvenz eines bedeutenden Kunden hat sich auch die in Osnabrück ansässige Berner GmbH entschieden, ihren Restrukturierungskurs im Rahmen eines am 23.03.2023 beim zuständigen Amtsgericht in Osnabrück gestellten Antrages auf Einleitung eines Insolvenzverfahrens in Eigenverwaltung fortzusetzen.

Mit Entscheidung des BGH vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) hat dieser die insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit zum Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters entschieden. Ausweislich der Entscheidung erstreckt sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte, wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt. Der BGH lehnt eine analoge Anwendung ausdrücklich ab.

Keine Regelungslücke

In Short

The Situation: Historically, creditors pursued by liquidators under the unfair preference regime could rely on a statutory set-off as a defence to the claim, reducing or eliminating their liability to repay what would otherwise be preference payments, on the basis that the liability for the unfair preference payment formed part of a running account between the creditor and the company.

In Short

The Situation: The High Court of Australia has confirmed in Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 that the "peak indebtedness rule" is no longer available to liquidators when assessing the value of running accounts in unfair preference claims.