Das Bundesarbeitsgericht (BAG) hatte darüber zu entscheiden, wann eine Sozialplandotierung durch die Einigungsstelle für ein Unternehmen außerhalb der Insolvenz wirtschaftlich unvertretbar ist. Dies sei der Fall, wenn die Erfüllung der Sozialplanverbindlichkeit zu einer Illiquidität, einer bilanziellen Überschuldung oder einer nicht mehr hinnehmbaren Schmälerung des Eigenkapitals der Gesellschaft führe. Liege danach eine wirtschaftliche Unvertretbarkeit vor, sei das Ermessen der Einigungsstelle überschritten und der beschlossene Sozialplan unwirksam.
What does it mean to own something? When should the law acknowledge that somebody really owns something, even if they don't formally own it?
And when will courts recognize the economic reality that one person — say, a judgment debtor — in truth owns something, notwithstanding that person's painstaking efforts to keep formal legal title in the hands of others?
The law has long recognized doctrines to disregard the existence, or pierc the veil, of corporate entities to which a debtor has transferred assets.
Two and a half years after the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, and on the verge of an economic recession, important developments are emerging in Spanish insolvency law.
Tras dos años y medio desde que empezara la crisis del COVID-19 y a las puertas de una recesión económica, surgen novedades importantes en el Derecho de la Insolvencia en España.
On 26 June 2019, the Directive on restructuring and insolvency[1] of the European Parliament and of the Council was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The ‘roaring twenties’ of this century have left the business world in constant turmoil. After emerging from the pandemic, geopolitical tensions and the resulting economic uncertainty have pushed companies to rethink their organisational structures and rework their operating models and supply chains. Digitalisation and automation of the workforce is now at the forefront as businesses respond to rapidly changing customer needs. All of this requires companies to focus strategically on change management, as well as major workforce restructurings and reorganisations.
Podwyższeniu ma ulec maksymalny wymiar kar pieniężnych nakładanych na związki przedsiębiorców przez organ ochrony konkurencji i konsumentów. A w przypadku niewypłacalności związku, przewiduje się odpowiedzialność solidarną jego członków.
As 21st century disputes take on an increasingly cross-border character, so, too have parties resorted to a powerful tool provided to non-U.S. litigants under American law -- petitions to take discovery pursuant to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1782.
While many have focused on the question of whether private international arbitrations can support Section 1782 petitions, case law has evolved on another question: Can Section 1782 be used by litigants seeking to identify property to satisfy judgments rendered in non-U.S. proceedings?
What role might dispute funding play in a complex cross-border dispute involving multiple jurisdictions in Latin America?
A recent Fifth Circuit decision released on December 7 sends a clear message to those seeking to challenge a trustee’s litigation funding agreement: you’d better be on solid ground when it comes to “standing.”
In the five-page opinion authored by Judge Jacques L. Weiner, Jr., the court found that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean lacked standing to challenge a funding agreement approved by a Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Fifth Circuit found that the debtor was not “directly, adversely, and financially impacted” by the funding agreement or the bankruptcy court’s order.