Die COVID-19-Pandemie und deren wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen führten bisher zu insgesamt fünf umfassenden COVID-19 Gesetzespaketen. Darunter finden sich ua Änderungen im Insolvenz-, Anfechtungs- und Eigenkapitalersatzrecht, mit denen die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie adressiert werden sollen. Ein erster Schritt in die richtige Richtung, weitere insolvenzrechtliche Anpassungen werden aber folgen müssen. Im Folgenden wird ein Überblick über die wesentlichen insolvenzrechtlichen Änderungen gegeben.

Verlängerte Insolvenzantragsfrist

Bulgaria has been in a state of emergency since 13 March due to the COVID-19 outbreak. On 23 March the Parliament voted on a special State of Emergency Act (COVID-19 Act) which suspended all court, arbitration and enforcement terms and proceedings during the state of emergency, currently in force until 13 April.

On 14 March 2020, the Croatian Ministry of Justice issued recommendations to prevent the transmission of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and control the pandemic ("Measures"). The Measures are applicable until 1 April 2020. The Measures advise temporary adjustments to legal requirements in civil, insolvency and criminal procedure law to avoid hardship that would otherwise arise as a result of the coronavirus crisis.

With the aim of further mitigating the negative effects of the crisis on companies and private individuals, the Measures advise the following:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion on December 24, 2019, In re Homebanc Mortgage Crop., No. 18-2887, 2019 WL 7161215(3rd Cir. De. 24, 2019) that has significant consequences for participants in repurchases transactions. The court affirmed the lower court judgment, that the securities had been liquidated in good faith.

Facts

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a safe harbor provision that establishes that a trustee or debtor-in-possession may not avoid a transfer “by or to... a financial institution.. in connection with a securities contract” other than under an intentional fraudulent conveyance theory. On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit in Note Holders v.

In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.

The Bankruptcy Protector has previously provided a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevichere and

In In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., 2019 WL 6767004 (6th Cir. Ct. App.), the United States Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the bankruptcy court for further consideration, the determination that the bankruptcy court held exclusive and unlimited jurisdiction and therefore could enjoin FERC from taking action regarding energy contracts because under the BJR they were financially burdensome on FES and as such could be rejected.

Facts

The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on October 29, 2019, in In re TelexFree, LLC, No. 18-2001, 2019 WL 5558088, at *1 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2019) that has significant consequences for ponzi scheme litigation in bankruptcy court.

The TelexFree Ponzi Scheme and Related Bankruptcy Litigation

Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies usually want to have influence over whom they are associated with. That's why shareholders often agree on a pre-emptive right (Aufgriffsrecht) to purchase existing shares in certain cases, e.g. in case of insolvency proceedings against a shareholder. However, according to the recent case law of the Regional Court of Linz on limited liability companies, pre-emptive rights to purchase the shares of an insolvent shareholder are invalid and unenforceable.

Know your co-shareholders