Die Restrukturierungs-Richtlinie ist in aller Munde. Wir zeigen, welche Auswirkungen sie auf das Arbeitsrecht hat.

Der vollständige Name lautet: Richtlinie (EU) 2019/1023 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 20. Juni 2019 über präventive Restrukturierungsrahmen, über Entschuldung und über Tätigkeitsverbote sowie über Maßnahmen zur Steigerung der Effizienz von Restrukturierungs-, Insolvenz- und Entschuldungsverfahren und zur Änderung der Richtlinie (EU) 2017/1132.

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.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently dismissed a borrower’s complaint against a lender, finding that the lender did not wrongfully foreclose on the borrower or engage in predatory lending. SeeHealy v. U.S. Bank, N.A. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr., 2018 WL 3733934 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2018). In the case, the borrower executed a loan agreement secured by a mortgage on his house in 2004. In 2013, he defaulted on the loan, and the note and mortgage were assigned to the defendant lender thereafter.

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently reversed a Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of an action and held that sales arising from tax foreclosures may be avoidable as fraudulent transfers. SeeHampton v. Ontario Cty., New York, 2018 WL 3454688 (W.D.N.Y. July 18, 2018). The case involves two adversary proceedings commenced by homeowners against the County of Ontario (the “County”). In each matter, the County foreclosed on plaintiffs’ homes after plaintiffs failed to pay property taxes.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that a mortgage servicer was not barred from bringing a second foreclosure action after the first action was dismissed with prejudice. SeeFederal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57 (Wis. 2018). In the case, a mortgage servicer brought a foreclosure action against the defendant borrower in November 2010, alleging that the borrower defaulted on his April 2009 loan payment. As part of the lawsuit, the servicer accelerated the debt.

Die neue Reform des Insolvenzanfechtungsrecht durch den Gesetzgeber löst einige Rechtsfragen des BAG und BGH zugunsten von Arbeitnehmern.

The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a foreclosing plaintiff summary judgment and held that plaintiff did not need to send a 90-day notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 because plaintiff was not a lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer. SeeNIC Holding Corp. v. Eisenegger, 59 Misc. 3d 1221(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018). In the case, one of plaintiff’s employees was relocating and defendant wanted to purchase the employee’s home.