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]
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.
Conventional wisdom suggests there is no requirement that a debtor be “insolvent” to file a case under Chapter 11 or any other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. No Code provision explicitly imposes such a requirement. Yet in 2023, several courts addressed the issue, and two courts directed the dismissal of massive Chapter 11 cases imposing what may fairly be characterized as an insolvency requirement.
Picture this: You are wrapping up writing a brief, memorandum of law, motion or the like regarding a complex bankruptcy issue. It is a close call, and you are grasping for additional arguments to make to the judge. Now ask yourself: Have I discussed the relevant burden of proof? If not, now ask yourself: Whose burden is it anyway?
The Eighth Circuit recently ruled that avoidance causes of action are property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code and thus may be sold by the trustee or debtor in possession. Pitman Farms v. ARKK Food Company, LLC, et al., No. 22-2011 (8th Cir. August 21, 2023). The ruling reinforces the notion that estate causes of action are assets that can be sold under § 363 of the Code, a practice which has been increasingly used in § 363 sales.
Theintroduction of Subchapter V in 2020 created a new avenue for small business debtors to more efficiently and effectively obtain relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
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).
This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.
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.
In 2020, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBA), which codified Subchapter V within Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The newly added subchapter is remarkably powerful, and with the new additions from Congress, creates a streamlined process for small businesses to reorganize. After passing the SBA, Congress subsequently increased the applicable debt limits for businesses eligible for Subchapter V, from approximately $2.7 million to $7.5 million, which qualified many more businesses for Subchapter V relief.