It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

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

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

The Supreme Court recently addressed two bankruptcy issues. In its opinion, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the breadth of the safe harbor provision which protects certain transfers by financial institutions in connection with a securities contract. In Village at Lakeridge, the Court weighed in on the scope of appellate review and whether a bankruptcy court’s factual determination should be reviewed for clear error or de novo. These decisions are notable because they provide guidance on previously murky issues of bankruptcy law.

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.

Judge Swain’s decision in the PROMESA Title III bankruptcy proceeding of the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) that a federal bankruptcy court cannot compel a municipal debtor to apply special revenues to post-petition debt service payments on special revenue bonds has generated controversy and caused some market participants to question whether, if the decision is upheld by the First Circuit on appeal, the perception that special revenue bonds have special rights in bankruptcy remains justified.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

In the recently decided case, Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit took a hardline position that trademark license rights are not protected in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy Code section 365(n) permits a licensee to continue to use intellectual property even if the debtor rejects the license agreement.