Am 16.06.2021 wurde von der Bundesregierung der Entwurf der neuen Restrukturierungsordnung (ReO), mit der die RL (EU) 2019/1023 (RestrukturierungsRL) umgesetzt wird, beschlossen (siehe hier).
With data privacy issues constantly in the news, what do businesses need to know about handling personal information when they’re considering bankruptcy, especially if some personal information – like customer records – may be a valuable asset?
The amendment to the Business Corporations Act effective from 1 January of this year (the "Amendment") brings, among other things, a significant change in the liability of members of a statutory body, which will affect the current topic of insolvency.
Members of a statutory body may now be liable in the event of insolvency for a much wider range of misconduct than was the case until the end of 2020. And not only them. The Amendment explicitly widens the range of persons to whom the new liability rules will apply.
Executive Summary
Mr Justice Snowden’s recent judgment sanctioning the Virgin Active restructuring plans is significant for several reasons. Not only is it the first judgment to consider the cram down power of the 2006 Companies Act, but it is only the third instance that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used. It is also the first time it has been used to cram down classes of dissenting landlords.
Introduction
A fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that a debtor will have the ability to get a fresh start once it emerges. A company’s ability to discharge liabilities is among the primary drivers for seeking protection under chapter 11 and, thus, it is of no surprise that ensuring necessary steps are taken for a successful discharge is of utmost importance. Absent a successful discharge of prepetition claims, the reorganized debtor may be saddled with additional liabilities, reducing value for plan stakeholders. The recent Third Circuit unreported decision – Sweeney v.
Executive Summary
On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.
Introduction
Bankruptcy courts often dismiss appeals of chapter 11 plans when granting the relief requested in the appeal would undermine the finality and reliability of the corresponding plans, a doctrine known as Equitable Mootness. Over the past several years, certain circuits criticized the doctrine for its lack of statutory basis and effect of avoiding review on the merits.1