On January 15th, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the end user of an electricity forward contact was not entitled to the benefits of the safe harbor provisions under Section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 556 allows a “forward contract merchant” to terminate a forward contract post-petition based on an ipso facto clause in the contract and exempts such actions from the automatic stay.

BAG befragt EuGH zur Haftungseinschränkung des Erwerbers im Bereich der betrieblichen Altersversorgung bei einem Betriebsübergang aus der Insolvenz.

The Eleventh Circuit recently found in favor of Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. by rejecting its own earlier dicta and explicitly expanding the preference payment defense known as “new value.” This provides additional protection for companies doing business with a debtor in the 90 days prior to bankruptcy.

THE SCOOP: BRUNO’S V. BLUE BELL

Die neue Reform des Insolvenzanfechtungsrecht durch den Gesetzgeber löst einige Rechtsfragen des BAG und BGH zugunsten von Arbeitnehmern.

On May 22, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Franchise Services of North America v. United States Trustees (In re Franchise Services of North America), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13332 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). That decision affirms the lower court’s holding that a “golden share” is valid and necessary to filing when held by a true investor, even if such investor is controlled by a creditor.

Insolvenzgeld – ein wichtiges Instrument zur Sanierung von Unternehmen und Erhalt der Mitarbeitermotivation. Wie ist der rechtliche Rahmen?

Für die Einordnung des Nachteilsausgleichs als Masseverbindlichkeit oder als Insolvenzforderung ist der Zeitpunkt der Durchführung der Betriebsänderung entscheidend.

Qualifizierung des Annahmeverzugslohns als Neuforderung oder Altmasseverbindlichkeit von Kündigungsmöglichkeit vor Entstehung des Lohnanspruchs abhängig.

Ob eine Forderung in der Insolvenz als Neuforderung oder Altmasseverbindlichkeit eingestuft wird, ist in der Praxis, auf Grund der gesetzlichen Reihenfolge der Befriedigung, von wesentlicher Bedeutung.

The Circuit Courts of Appeal have split on whether a prepetition transfer made by a debtor is avoidable if the transfer was made through a financial intermediary that was a mere conduit. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved the split by deciding that transfers through “mere conduits” are not protected. This is a major (and adverse) decision for lenders, bondholders and noteholders who receive payments through an intermediary such as a disbursing agent.

In a previous article, The Eagle and the Bear: Russian Proceedings Recognized Under Chapter 15, we discussed In re Poymanov, in which the Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) recognized a Russian foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code even though the debtor had only nominal assets in the United States (the “Recognition Order”). The Bankruptcy Court had declined to rule upon recognition whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.