This post provides a quick primer on the administrative expense claims. These claims are entitled to priority for actual and necessary goods and services supplied to a debtor in bankruptcy. For a claim to qualify for administrative expense status, a debtor must request that the claimant provide goods and services post-petition or induce the claimant to do so. The goods or services must result in a benefit to the bankruptcy estate. And the claimant bears the burden of proof that a claim qualifies for priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A).

The Government of Hungary has proposed an amendment to Act XLIX of 1991 on bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings (Insolvency Act) aiming to modernise the procedural rules of insolvency proceedings, for example by introducing communication via email and video conferences.

Technical reliefs

Status as of 09/06 12:00 CET

Table of contents

On 28 May 2020, the Hungarian Government adopted amendments to the laws on company liquidation and forced deletion procedures to cushion the impact of the global coronavirus pandemic on the economy.

1. Changes related to liquidation

Liquidation is initiated when a company is unable to meet its financial obligations and pay off its debt. However, in Hungary, the courts do not apply an actual insolvency test before ordering liquidation but check only whether certain criteria have been met.

We’ve reported here and here on the January 2019 bankruptcy filing by Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”), which was primarily the result of potential liability stemming from catastrophic California wildfires.

Status as of 16/09       

Table of Content

WHAT DUTY?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

WHEN DOES IT APPLY?

Maintenance of solvency Management of business risks

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

Courts reviewing a bankruptcy court’s decision to approve a chapter 11 reorganization plan over the objections of an interested party must consider not only the merits, but also (if implementation of the plan was not stayed) potential injury to the reliance interests of other parties relying on the plan. These issues are confronted in Drivetrain, LLC v. Kozel (In re Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas), 2020 WL 2121449 (10th Cir.

Gerade in aktuellen Krisenzeiten stellt sich für viele Unternehmer die Frage, wie sie ihr Unternehmen bestmöglich sanieren können, um so das Fortbestehen des Unternehmens zu sichern. Dafür stehen in der Praxis eine Vielzahl an rechtlichen Sanierungsinstrumenten zur Verfügung.