Liquidator remuneration in insolvency proceedings often raises difficult questions; especially in large corporate collapses where the work is extensive and the stakes are high. Courts must balance fair compensation with creditor protection, but approaches to fee assessment have varied across jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty and dispute.
When a company goes into liquidation, creditors often wonder whether they will recover their debts. One available option to achieve this is funding legal action to help the liquidator recover assets.
Singapore's insolvency legislation allows creditors who fund liquidators' recovery actions to have priority over other creditors in the distribution of recovered assets. This improves the viability of commencing insolvency proceedings as an asset recovery tool.
When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator steps into a pivotal role – one that requires navigating complex challenges to recover assets and maximize returns for creditors. This task entails conducting detailed investigations and pursuing legal actions, processes that demand a careful balance of inquiry, judgment, and responsibility.
Die strategische Planung der Maßnahmen ist zentral für das Gelingen arbeitsrechtlicher Umstrukturierungen. Die wichtigsten To-dos erfahren Sie im heutigen Beitrag.
Nachfolgend wird die Einordnung der Umsatzsteuer in der Insolvenz als Masse- oder Insolvenzforderung und die Auswirkung auf die Gläubigerbefriedigung erläutert.
Auch unter betriebswirtschaftlichen Aspekten stellen arbeitsrechtliche Umstrukturierungen eine Herausforderung dar. Wie CMS Advisory Sie dabei unterstützen kann, erfahren Sie im heutigen Beitrag.
Unsere Blog-Serie führt durch die verschiedenen Phasen einer Umstrukturierung und beantwortet damit verbundene Fragen – auch abseits juristischer Themen.
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.
Das StaRUG eignet sich insbesondere für finanzielle, weniger für personelle, Restrukturierungen
Das Gesetz über den Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen für Unternehmen,kurz „StaRUG″ ist zum 1. Januar 2021 in Kraft getreten und setzt die sog. Restrukturierungsrichtlinie (Richtlinie [EU] 2019/1023) um.