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).

Deal structure matters, particularly in bankruptcy. The Third Circuit recently ruled that a creditor’s right to future royalty payments in a non-executory contract could be discharged in the counterparty-debtor’s bankruptcy. The decision highlights the importance of properly structuring M&A, earn-out, and royalty-based transactions to ensure creditors receive the benefit of their bargain — even (or especially) if their counterparty later encounters financial distress.

Background

In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).

A Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court’s recent appellate decision in Blumsack v. Harrington (In re Blumsack) leaves the door open for those employed in the cannabis industry to seek bankruptcy relief where certain conditions are met.

It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.

Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing