Der Bundesgerichtshof hat in einer aktuellen Entscheidung seine Rechtsprechung zur Vorsatzanfechtung nach § 133 InsO neu ausgerichtet. Die Anforderungen für diesen in der Praxis äußerst relevanten Anfechtungstatbestand wurden merklich erhöht.
Der nachfolgende Beitrag soll dem Leser einen Überblick über die wesentlichen Neuerungen verschaffen.
Die Steuerstundungen aufgrund der Corona-Pandemie laufen am 30. September 2021 aus. Hier erfahren Sie, welche Anforderungen Geschäftsleiter, Steuerberater und Wirtschaftsprüfer beachten müssen, um Haftungsrisiken zu vermeiden.
Das Wichtigste im Überblick:
The StaRUG provides for a so-called stabilisation order to make it easier for companies to restructure. This is also referred to as a moratorium. We explain the requirements and consequences.
On 1 January 2021, the StaRUG, which goes back to an EU directive, came into force and wants to provide a `second chance for businesses. The abbreviation stands for 'Unternehmensstabilisierungs- und –restrukturierungsgesetz' ('Corporate Stabilisation and Restructuring Act').
With this overview, we want to provide you with a high-level overview of the StaRUG on the following main issues:
Shortly after the passage of a bill injecting an additional $310 billion into the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, the SBA has issued another supplemental Interim Final Rule (IFR) providing new guidance on several issues, including eligibility for hedge funds, private equity firms and portfolio companies, and has also answered questions about businesses in bankruptcy proceedings.
On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.
By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy filings on trademark licenses. Until May 20th, brand owners in some jurisdictions could use bankruptcy protections to terminate the rights of third parties to use its licensed trademarks. Now, it is clear that a bankrupt licensor cannot rescind trademark license rights. Licensees can continue to do whatever their trademark licenses authorize, even if the licensor has filed for bankruptcy.
In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).
On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.
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.