The impact of COVID-19 is yet to be fully realized, and many companies are yet to consider restructuring as a means to survive the pandemic, but all companies and all creditors can benefit now from learning how employee matters are treated in a bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (as amended, the Bankruptcy Code). This blog provides a high-level overview of some of the most material matters affecting an employee workforce in the context of a chapter 11 restructuring.
Gerät ein Unternehmen in die wirtschaftliche Schieflage, erscheint nicht selten der Abschluss eines firmenbezogenen Sanierungstarifvertrages als Mittel der Wahl: Der Arbeitgeber verpflichtet sich, weiter in das Unternehmen zu investieren, und die Arbeitnehmer erbringen einen eigenen Sanierungsbeitrag, indem sie z.B. auf bestimmte tarifliche Leistungen wie Urlaubs- und Weihnachtsgeld verzichten. So hofft man, gemeinsam das Unternehmen zukunftsfit zu machen und langfristig die Arbeitsplätze zu sichern. Doch was, wenn die Sanierung scheitert und Arbeitsplätze abgebaut werden müssen?
In 2005, Justice Blair, for the Ontario Court of Appeal, cautioned courts acting pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA") that their jurisdiction, broad as it was, was not without limit. The setting was the restructuring of Stelco, a complicated and hotly contested affair, which by then had been ongoing for fourteen months or so.
Employee rights issues arising from M&A transactions in Germany can be difficult to navigate. Compared to the United States and most other regions, Germany has a high level of employee protection, resulting from a number of statutes which put multiple layers of protection over an employment relationship. While employee rights issues arising from M&A transactions in Germany may be difficult to oversee, they rarely deter companies from pursuing a transaction; however, employee issues play a major role in most acquisitions and carve out situations, so understanding the nuan
The court has held that a statutory demand is valid despite the high default interest rate on an underlying loan.
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?
These are tough times in the hotel business. The recession has squeezed room rates and net operating income. The credit crunch means new borrowing is available only at lower loan to value ratios near 50%, on already beaten down values. At the same time, many tens of billions of dollars of existing hotel loans are maturing or otherwise in default, leaving the owners with little ability to sell or refinance at for amounts sufficient to pay off existing debt.
As Dr. Seuss once famously wrote (Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Go Now), “THE TIME HAS COME, THE TIME IS NOW”. Good faith efforts to bargain with Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code in the foreground must begin now if we want to emerge from this financial crisis.
IUE-CWA v Visteon Corporation, 2010 WL 2735715 (3rd Cir July 13, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Once a company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (to sell its assets, reorganize or liquidate), Bankruptcy Code § 1114 sets forth a detailed procedure for the employer to follow to modify or terminate certain retiree benefits. Among other things, § 1114 imposes on the employer the burden of showing that the elimination or modification of benefits is necessary to permit reorganization.