The Barton doctrine provides that a court-appointed receiver cannot be sued absent “leave of court by which he was appointed.” Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881).
Section 548 of the bankruptcy code authorizes a trustee, debtor, or other appropriate party to avoid actual and constructive fraudulent transfers that occurred prepetition. In order to prove that a transfer was an actual fraudulent transfer, the trustee (or another appropriate plaintiff) must prove that the debtor made the transfer “with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which to debtor was or became…indebted.” 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1)(A).
An appeals court has issued an insightful decision on the availability of damages when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed in bad faith. See Stursberg v. Morrison Sund PLLC, No. 23-1186, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2024).
The decision addresses both the interplay between Bankruptcy Code sections 303 and 305 and federal preemption of state law.
Under federal law, a debtor may be criminally prosecuted for various kinds of misconduct in connection with a bankruptcy case, including concealing assets, falsifying information, embezzlement, or bribery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157. The U.S. Trustee, which serves as a watchdog over the bankruptcy process, will refer such cases to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation and prosecution.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]
Insolvenzanträge von namhaften Projektentwicklern und Immobiliengesellschaften stellen die betroffenen Unternehmen und ihre Gläubiger vor große Herausforderungen und setzen die gesamte Immobilienbranche unter Druck. Gleichzeitig gewinnen alternative Restrukturierungsmethoden, die außerhalb oder bereits im Vorfeld eines formalen Insolvenzverfahrens stattfinden, zunehmend an Bedeutung.
Vor diesem Hintergrund fällt auch vermehrt das Stichwort “StaRUG“, wenn es um die Restrukturierung von immobilienhaltenden Gesellschaften geht.
The long-awaited amendment "H" of the Slovenian Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Dissolution Act (the "Act") entered into force on 1 November 2023. The new provisions complete the transposition of Directive 2019/1023,[1] introducing three crucial sets of changes to the Slovenian insolvency and restructuring legislation.
In our practice, we have found that the most common reason for distressed companies to initiate reorganisation measures is a severe liquidity squeeze.
Driven by regulation, banks are increasingly reluctant to grant senior bridge financings, leading companies to resort to trade credits of major suppliers, such as deferrals or generous payment agreements. But these trade creditors are often unaware of significant third-party liability risks.
Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies ("GmbH") often stipulate the right to purchase the shares of co-shareholders in certain events. These "share purchase rights" (Aufgriffsrechte) entitle the remaining shareholders to acquire the share of a shareholder when a contractually defined event (Aufgriffsfälle), like insolvency or the death of a shareholder, occurs. Often these rights are laid down in articles of association or a separate shareholders' agreement (Syndikatsvertrag). They are generally qualified as option rights.
After a delay of more than a year, an Act on Preventive Restructuring (the "Act") implementing the EU directive on preventive restructuring frameworks finally became effective in the Czech Republic on 23 September 2023. The long-awaited Act introduced a brand-new legal tool enabling viable enterprises in temporary financial distress to achieve restructuring outside insolvency proceedings. It is a voluntary and flexible process requiring cooperation with creditors, but not necessarily with all of them.
Who can use it?