Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]

The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.

Insolvenzanträge von namhaften Projektentwicklern und Immobiliengesellschaften stellen die betroffenen Unternehmen und ihre Gläubiger vor große Herausforderungen und setzen die gesamte Immobilienbranche unter Druck. Gleichzeitig gewinnen alternative Restrukturierungsmethoden, die außerhalb oder bereits im Vorfeld eines formalen Insolvenzverfahrens stattfinden, zunehmend an Bedeutung.

Vor diesem Hintergrund fällt auch vermehrt das Stichwort “StaRUG“, wenn es um die Restrukturierung von immobilienhaltenden Gesellschaften geht.

One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.

On 30 November the Supreme Court delivered its written judgment dealing with the correct test for insolvency when considering the eligibility of a debtor for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (as amended).

Background

One of the qualifying criteria for a PIA is that the debtor must demonstrate that the debtor is “insolvent” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. That provision defines the term as meaning “that the debtor is unable to pay his or her debts in full as they fall due”.

Can a debtor reinstate a defaulted loan under a Chapter 11 plan without paying default rate interest? This question was analyzed thoroughly in a recent Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court decision by Judge Philip Bentley.

In einer aktuellen Entscheidung hat das BAG festgestellt, dass die Vermutungswirkung des § 125 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 InsO auch dann eingreift, wenn bis zu einem anvisierten Stilllegungszeitpunkt noch viel Zeit vergeht und für ein Unternehmen in der Zwischenzeit – anders als prognostiziert – doch ein Erwerber gefunden wird (BAG, Urteil vom 17. August 2023 – 6 AZR 56/23, PM).

While the economy continues to look positive on paper, the underlying issues stemming from recent inflation and ever increasing overheads continue to affect businesses. Against this backdrop and a year on from the commencement of the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (SI 380/2022) (“the 2022 Regulations”) on 29 July 2022, it seems auspicious to remind directors of their duties to wind up a company in a timely manner or simply exercise good corporate governance and wind up companies that are no longer operational.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that there was no actionable infringement where an uncompleted building sold under the authority of a bankruptcy court was later completed. Cornice & Rose International, LLC v. Four Keys, LLC et al., Case No. 22-1976 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Loken, Shepard, Kelly, JJ.) (per curiam). The Court explained that the architectural copyright claims were precluded by the bankruptcy court’s order approving the sale.