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).

In a sudden and stunning collapse, FTX, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency exchange, run by 30-year-old Sam Bankman-Fried along with more than 130 entities affiliated with FTX, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware on Friday.[1] Separately, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas appointed a Bahamas-based provisional liquidator for the controlling FTX entity and froze its assets along with

On Aug. 30, 2021, in a significant decision that paves the way for additional substantial recoveries for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals preserved the ability of Irving H. Picard, SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), to pursue $3.75 billion of stolen customer property currently in the hands of participants in the global financial markets.

On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled its first civil action for alleged fraud against the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) – the primary lending program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act for small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?