Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).
When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”
When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?
The U.S. Supreme Court held last week in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. that an insurance company with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” with the right to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan.
Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:
This article originally appeared in Vol. 52 of Kentucky Trucker, a publication of the Kentucky Trucking Association.
Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.
The manufacturing sector in Germany is currently being hit hard. The reasons are massive increases in material prices and energy costs due to the indirect consequences of the Corona pandemic, disrupted supply chains and the Ukraine war. As a consequence of the economic crisis and insolvency of an important customer, Berner GmbH, based in Osnabrück, decided to continue its restructuring course within the framework of a petition filed on 23.03.2023 with the competent Osnabrück Local Court for the initiation of insolvency proceedings in self -administration.
Das produzierende Gewerbe in Deutschland wird derzeit erheblich in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Grund sind massive Materialpreis- und Energiekostenerhöhungen aufgrund der mittelbaren Folgen der Corona-Pandemie, gestörten Lieferketten und dem Ukrainekrieg. Als Folge der Wirtschaftskrise sowie der Insolvenz eines bedeutenden Kunden hat sich auch die in Osnabrück ansässige Berner GmbH entschieden, ihren Restrukturierungskurs im Rahmen eines am 23.03.2023 beim zuständigen Amtsgericht in Osnabrück gestellten Antrages auf Einleitung eines Insolvenzverfahrens in Eigenverwaltung fortzusetzen.
Mit Entscheidung des BGH vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) hat dieser die insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit zum Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters entschieden. Ausweislich der Entscheidung erstreckt sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte, wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt. Der BGH lehnt eine analoge Anwendung ausdrücklich ab.
Keine Regelungslücke