The EU Parliament adopted the Directive on future "Preventive Restructuring Frameworks", which creates the basis for uniform preventive restructuring across the European Union and will fundamentally change how companies deal with financial difficulties and restructuring.

Until now, the EU has suffered from a regulatory patchwork in this area with no regulations in some markets and sophisticated procedures in others. The new directive mitigates the dangers and risks posed by the former uneven regulatory landscape.

The EU Parliament adopted the Directive on future "Preventative Restructuring Frameworks.

This creates the basis for a uniform legal framework for preventive restructuring within Europe. To date there has been a "patchwork" of regulations in the EU: in some cases there are no regulations at all, in others there are sophisticated procedures in place. The new directive now counteracts the dangers and risks of such regulatory differences.

Welche Stolpersteine drohen, wenn einige Arbeitnehmer noch nach der Betriebsstilllegung für Abwicklungsarbeiten benötigt werden, zeigt der Fall Air Berlin.

Als Air Berlin im November 2017 Insolvenz anmeldete, war das Schicksal der rund 6.000 Arbeitnehmer eine der in der Presse am meisten diskutierten Fragen. Bereits ein halbes Jahr später hatten etwa 3.000 von ihnen einen neuen Arbeitsplatz gefunden, die meisten bei anderen Fluggesellschaften. Hunderte andere wurden zunächst in Transfergesellschaften betreut.

Welle von Kündigungsschutzklagen

BAG befragt EuGH zur Haftungseinschränkung des Erwerbers im Bereich der betrieblichen Altersversorgung bei einem Betriebsübergang aus der Insolvenz.

In Coosemans Miami v. Arthur (In re Arthur), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida held last week that individuals in control of a PACA trust may still receive a bankruptcy discharge of debts arising from their breach of such PACA trust. A link to the opinion is here.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that federal bankruptcy law does not prohibit a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy filing notwithstanding that such shareholder was also an unsecured creditor. This represents the latest successful attempt to preclude bankruptcy through golden shares or bankruptcy blocking provisions in corporate authority documents.

On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).

Weird things happen in bankruptcy court. All you high-falutin Chapter 11 jokers out there, cruise down to the bankruptcy motions calendar one day.

Bankruptcy courts have authority to hold in civil contempt one who refuses to comply with a bankruptcy court order, including incarceration and/or daily fines until the offender complies.[1] But when does civil contempt[2] cross into criminal contempt, which is punitive and outside

The recent decision from the United States Supreme Court in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling (“Lamar”), further restricts a creditor’s ability to pursue future recovery on its debt through a nondischargeability action in a debtor’s bankruptcy. On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled in Lamar that a debtor’s false statement about a single asset must be in writing before the creditor’s debt can be excepted as nondischargeable in bankruptcy.