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).

It is being reported that the Latvian State Security Service (the VDD) has discontinued a criminal investigation started in November 2023 into the sale of a helicopter by a company indirectly co-owned by the designated person Petr Aven .

More than 75% of the U.S. population lives in states that have legalized cannabis for adult and/or medical use.

Pursuant to a 2022 directive from President Joe Biden, a 2023 recommendation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and a scientific review released in January supporting the HHS's recommendation, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is now evaluating whether to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug.

In contrast with a majority of bankruptcy courts that routinely dismiss cannabis-related cases for perceived violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California in the recent opinionIn re Hacienda, No. 2:22-BK-15163-NB, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. July 11, 2023), refused to conform to the same historical standard. Instead, the Bankruptcy Court struck down the U.S. trustee’s motion to dismiss not once but twice in favor of confirming a marijuana business’ Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

Background

In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) (Re Avanti), the court considered the nature of fixed and floating charges. Whether a charge is fixed or floating has implications for both lenders and administrators in terms of determining to what extent a chargor can recover from the charged assets and to what extent a borrower can deal with its assets.

Background of case:

In MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code―which limits the effect of certain appeals on orders authorizing the sale or lease of bankruptcy estate property―is a jurisdictional provision.

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved confusion in the lower courts over the scope and application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which prohibits debtors from discharging debt through bankruptcy when such debt was obtained as a result of fraudulent actions.