Here’s my take on third-party releases in a bankruptcy plan [not that anyone asked]:
“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
Where a creditor believes that a debtor is insolvent, any “third-party application” that it makes for the insolvency of the debtor must be well substantiated.
Decision
The District Court of Hamburg recently considered an application for insolvency on grounds of illiquidity due to default in social security contributions.
A landmark decision of the German Federal Court (13 June 2006 – IX ZB 238/05) held that the illiquidity of a company could be assumed where it was in default for more than six months of social security contributions.
A proposed amendment to the Insolvency Act, has been approved by the government and is currently under discussion in the Czech Parliament. It is expected to significantly alleviate the situation for debtors seeking debt relief. The previous government had intended to introduce similar changes; however, the legislative process was halted by the end of its term.
Current position
Currently, debtors can achieve debt relief only after 5 years of "good conduct", unless they:
In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.
Background
Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.
The Court of Appeal has recently referred to established case law that the court will only interfere with the act of an officeholder “if he has done something so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.
While the judge in the lower court had not made any error of law, on the facts there were identifiable flaws in the judge's reasoning that the trustees' decision not to join in the proceedings was perverse.
The judge had failed to recognise that:
“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.
Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat am 29. Juni 2023 entschieden, dass ein Rechtsanwalt wegen Beratungsfehlern zu Zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife gegenüber dem Geschäftsführer haften kann, auch wenn er das Unternehmen und nicht die/den Geschäftsführer persönlich berät (IX ZR 56/22, ZInsO 2023, 1642).
“Notwithstanding the court of appeals’ error, this case does not warrant this Court’s review.”
The UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) introduced temporary measures to provide companies with the flexibility to continue trading during COVID-19. CIGA also enacted a package of permanent measures to maximise the survival prospects of viable companies.
The reforms implemented through CIGA are the most significant change to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime in 20 years. This article looks at how those reforms have taken shape over the last three years, with reference to the Insolvency Service's Post-Implementation Review of CIGA.