Landmark decision holds that the SFO does not have the power to procure documents from foreign companies outside the jurisdiction.

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat mit Urteil vom 18. November 2020 (IV ZR 217/19) entschieden, dass Ansprüche gegen GmbH-Geschäftsführer auf Ersatz von Zahlungen, die nach Insolvenzreife vorgenommen wurden, vom Versicherungsschutz der D&O-Versicherung umfasst sind. Mehrere Oberlandesgerichte hatten dies zuletzt noch anders beurteilt. In der Praxis hatte dies zu einer erheblichen Unsicherheit geführt, nicht zuletzt mit Blick auf die infolge der COVID-19-Pandemie vorübergehend geänderten Insolvenzantragspflichten.

Hintergrund der Entscheidung

Looking back at the last few months, the COVID-19 pandemic has hit many companies hard and amplified disruptive trends in various sectors. In addition to other measures to address COVID-19 impact on businesses, Germany has made significant progress toward international best practices for restructuring: StaRUG — known as the German scheme — came into effect on 1 January 2021, as one of the most modern restructuring laws in the world. But how will StaRUG help German companies survive the crisis and what if insolvency is unavoidable?

Through implementing the EU Restructuring Directive, German restructuring and insolvency law will be modernized, more effective, and enriched by new instruments.

Durch die Umsetzung der EU Restrukturierungs-Richtlinie soll das deutsche Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrecht modernisiert, effektiver gestaltet und um neue Instrumentarien bereichert werden.

Many small businesses are structured as pass-through entities for federal income tax purposes.[1] Well known examples include partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations that elect “S Corporation” status under 26 U.S.C. Section 1362.[2]

Regierungsentwurf setzt EU Restrukturierungs-Richtlinie um und führt neues Sanierungsinstrumentarium ein.

Government draft of law implements EU Restructuring Framework, and introduces new restructuring instruments.

Successfully executing an acquisition from stress, distress, or insolvency requires a creative approach to reconcile competing interests.

Two recent bankruptcy court cases remind counsel of the great importance of knowing the proclivities of the presiding panel of judges who will hear your client’s case. Experienced practitioners know the law and the best advocates also know the assigned judges. Both cases discussed below illustrate the importance, at least in bankruptcy practice, of arguing the law in a fashion that addresses the court’s sense of what is fair and proper under the case’s unique circumstances.

Voluntary Retirement Plan Contributions Are Required for Maintenance or Support?