Seit dem 1. März 2020 ausgereichte Darlehen unterliegen dank neuer Gesetzgebung Privilegierungen im Hinblick auf insolvenzrechtliche Anfechtungs- und Haftungstatbestände.
Am 27. März 2020 wurde das Gesetz zur vorübergehenden Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht und zur Begrenzung der Organhaftung bei einer durch die COVID-19-Pandemie bedingten Insolvenz (COVID-19-Insolvenzaussetzungsgesetz – COVInsAG) verkündet. Dieses trat rückwirkend zum 1. März 2020 in Kraft.
Die Hotelindustrie gehört zu den Branchen, die von der Corona-Krise am schwersten getroffen werden. Mitunter geht es um das schlichte Überleben der betroffenen Unternehmen. Wir möchten Ihnen in einem interdisziplinären Webinar einige der drängendsten Fragen beantworten, die Ihnen helfen sollen, durch diese herausfordernde Zeit durchzukommen.
Folgende Themen stehen im Fokus des Webinars:
The lender's dilemma
Lenders who take security over shares in an English company have to decide whether to take either:
- a legal mortgage by becoming registered owner of the shares
- an equitable mortgage or charge with the chargor remaining the registered owner.
A legal mortgage gives the lender the right to vote subject to the terms of the mortgage document and prevents the chargor from disposing of legal title to the shares to a third party, as the lender is the registered owner of the shares.
Background
The German Insolvency Act says an insolvency administrator may sell a "moveable object" on which a right to separate satisfaction (Absonderungsrecht) exists if such object is in his possession. The right to separate satisfaction entitles creditors with such a right to be satisfied ahead of all other creditors from the proceeds of selling a separate pool of assets within the insolvent estate
Background
Pars Ram Brother (Singapore Company) obtained trade financing facilities from various banks, and pledged the goods financed by each bank under a pledge arrangement as security.
The Singapore Company entered into voluntary liquidation. The liquidator discovered that the Singapore Company had mixed the goods making it impossible to identify which goods were financed by which bank.
Issue
The Defendant was a dentist who had executed a personal guarantee on July 7, 2011 in favour of the Plaintiff (the "Bank") in order to secure payment of the indebtedness of the Defendant's professional corporation. The Bank made a demand for payment on the guarantee, and subsequently brought an action against the Defendant (the "First Action").The Bank was successful on a motion for summary judgment and judgment was granted against the Defendant.
One of the most delicate balancing acts that the Courts are asked to perform in Canada is balancing all of the disparate and competing interests in an insolvency process. The Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to review one iteration of this balancing act in Reciprocal Opportunities Incorporated v.
In Royal Bank of Canada v. Casselman, three motions were brought before the Court. First, a continuation of a motion for approval and directions brought by the receiver. Second, a motion to allow counsel for the debtor to withdraw as lawyer of record. Third, a motion by the Sexton Group Ltd.
Financial institutions need to be mindful of the effect of the engagement of financial advisors with respect to their special loan clients.
Yes, on the facts in the Chapter 11 proceedings involving Borders, the insolvent bookseller.
Jefferies & Company, an investment bank, was retained by Borders to pursue reorganisation strategies, including a possible sale of the company’s assets as a going concern. The bank made considerable efforts in flogging the assets, which resulted in an offer from an interested party, but an actual sale of assets did not happen. Jefferies nevertheless claimed the liquidation fee under its agreement with Borders. The company’s creditors opposed this: no sale, no success fee.