The UK government has announced that it will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to, among other things, give businesses greater flexibility to help them emerge intact at the end of the pandemic.

On 14 March 2020, the Croatian Ministry of Justice issued recommendations to prevent the transmission of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and control the pandemic ("Measures"). The Measures are applicable until 1 April 2020. The Measures advise temporary adjustments to legal requirements in civil, insolvency and criminal procedure law to avoid hardship that would otherwise arise as a result of the coronavirus crisis.

With the aim of further mitigating the negative effects of the crisis on companies and private individuals, the Measures advise the following:

Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and Federal Rule 58 can sometimes look like this. Carolina and Khaled have a much simpler solution.

When can a Federal Court employ a federal common law rule to make its decision in the case? Justice Gorsuch answer this in Rodriguez v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., U.S., No. 18-1269, 2/25/20.[1] The answer . . . less often than you might think.

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

Are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency incompatible? Recent Court of Appeal authority suggested that they are, but in Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC (TCC), Adam Constable QC sitting as a district judge in the high court has clarified the exceptional circumstances in which a company in liquidation can enforce an adjudicator’s decision in its favour.

We here at the Global Restructuring & Insolvency Developments (GRID to our friends) have been following the tuition clawback wars for a few years – the cases in which a bankruptcy trustee sues a college to return tuition that the bankrupt parent paid for their child when the parent was otherwise stiffing other creditors.

Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies usually want to have influence over whom they are associated with. That's why shareholders often agree on a pre-emptive right (Aufgriffsrecht) to purchase existing shares in certain cases, e.g. in case of insolvency proceedings against a shareholder. However, according to the recent case law of the Regional Court of Linz on limited liability companies, pre-emptive rights to purchase the shares of an insolvent shareholder are invalid and unenforceable.

Know your co-shareholders

One day, you get a notice in the mail that an important customer has filed chapter 11. Your customer recently paid $250,000 on invoices that were delinquent for several months and still owes you $500,000. The customer, a brick-and-mortar store, sent form letters to its vendors expressing optimism that the chapter 11 process will allow the store to continue to operate while it locates a buyer which will continue to operate the store.

The Austrian Supreme Court has recently found that insolvency related avoidance claims can be sold. This may open a whole new business segment and will most certainly have a material impact on defendants in avoidance proceedings.

Assignability of insolvency related avoidance claims