Ist der Vertragspartner insolvent, stellt sich die Frage nach der Einordnung der offenen Forderungen: Insolvenzforderung oder Masseverbindlichkeit?
Ob man Insolvenz- oder Massegläubiger ist, spielt vor allem wegen der fast immer unterschiedlichen Befriedigungsquote eine große Rolle: Insolvenzforderungen werden nur in Höhe der (meist geringen) Insolvenzquote bedient, während Masseverbindlichkeiten (häufig auch als Masseforderung bezeichnet) grundsätzlich in voller Höhe vorab aus der Insolvenzmasse befriedigt werden.
Seit 25 Jahren bietet die InsO verschiedene Werkzeuge, um Gläubiger bestmöglich befriedigen und gleichzeitig Unternehmen nachhaltig sanieren zu können.
Geld zurück trotz erbrachter Leistung wegen zu hoher Deckungslücke des Schuldners. Aber wann?
Gläubigerbenachteiligungsvorsatz bei der Vorsatzanfechtung im Rahmen von Grundstücksverkäufen (BGH, Urteil vom 22. Februar 2024 – IX ZR 226/20).
The impact of COVID-19 is being felt at all levels of the economy and will work its way through bankruptcy courts for years to come. In these early days, many creditors who are themselves suffering are providing assistance to troubled companies. Suppliers and commercial landlords are agreeing to various forms of relief, including modified credit terms and rent relief to allow customers to bridge this period of unprecedented disruption. While these corporate good Samaritans are providing immediate aid they may be subjecting themselves to the risk of future losses.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
Last week, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law, implementing broad relief for individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19. One of the sections of the CARES Act receiving less attention is a temporary amendment to the Bankruptcy Code to provide streamlined reorganization procedures for businesses with debt of less than $7.5 million.
As the nation hunkers down to combat the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bankruptcy courts throughout the country have moved quickly to implement procedures to preserve access to the courts while limiting in-person interaction during the crisis. Each court’s specific COVID-19 procedures are different, but they largely prohibit in-person hearings, recognize the need for flexibility and adjournments for non-emergent matters whenever possible, and encourage the creative use of technology to allow as many matters to go forward as scheduled, including evidentiary hearings.
Social distancing. Elbow bumps. Flatten the curve. These are the new phrases and behaviors we have learned to avoid exposure to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This epic struggle forces us to reexamine and reevaluate our daily habits, lifestyles and customs as we work collectively to minimize the harm to our families, friends and neighbors throughout the United States.
On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 18-1269 (U.S. 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that the so-called “Bob Richards rule” should not be used to determine which member of a group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a federal income tax refund.