The German Government has introduced a reform of the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung– InsO) in order to further facilitate business restructurings in Germany.
In Germany, the restructuring of companies or groups in financial crisis is subject to significant tax risks.
It has become common in financings for companies to utilise a capital structure with multiple layers or tranches of debt.
One thing companies often overlook in a restructuring plan is the role of communications.
Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code enables debtors that are already subject to a foreign insolvency proceeding to receive assistance from US courts in order to protect and administer their property located in the United States.
The turmoi l that rocked many commercial banks during the most recent recession should serve as a warning sign to savvy borrowers that they must be proactive and explore new financing opportunities, not only to address their own credit issues, but also to avoid potential problems with their existing lenders.
The United States Bankruptcy Court recently denied confirmation of a bankruptcy plan even though it found that the plan's global settlement was "fair and reasonable."1 Why? Because the plan's releases were too broad and "unreasonable" for many of the constituents. The case provides a pointed lesson to creditors and debtors alike — pay attention to the releases; overdoing it may sink the whole ship.
With the flood of debt-heavy capital structures created over the past decade, bankruptcy courts have been left to clean up the remnants of many failed transactions. Given the volume of debt provided, courts are likely to continue to be called upon to determine the relative rights of creditors that result from multi-tiered debt structures.
On August 4, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division extended equitable principles previously applied in mortgage foreclosure cases to how far an unsecured judgment creditor could go to satisfy its lien against a debtor, deciding to follow a line of cases standing for the principal that “even in the absence of express statutory authorization, a court has inherent equitable authority to allow a fair market value credit in order to prevent a double recovery by a creditor against a debtor.” Moreover, in the case, MMU of New York, Inc. v.
Reversing both the bankruptcy court and the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a trademark licensing agreement had been substantially performed and was therefore not subject to rejection under §365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Exide Technologies, Case No. 08-1872 (3d Cir., June 1, 2010) (Roth, J.) (Ambro, J., concurring).