In der Insolvenz eines Unternehmens sehen sich auch dessen Arbeitnehmer Anfechtungsklagen des Insolvenzverwalters ausgesetzt. Ist die Anfechtungsklage erfolgreich, muss der Arbeitnehmer regelmäßig den Arbeitslohn der letzten drei Monate vor Antrag auf Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens an die Insolvenzmasse zurückzahlen.
The recent spate of high-profile company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), including those of BHS, Store 21 and more recently Love Coffee, The Food Retailer Group and Blue Inc, has placed this corporate rescue tool back in the spotlight.
CVAs can be a useful mechanism for turning around a failing business, but it is clear that they are no panacea. First, they don’t always work, and BHS is a striking example of a CVA failing to save a business despite compromising a large number of leasehold liabilities.
In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and another (2015), the High Court declined to set aside an order under CPR Part 71 that a non-resident foreign officer of a judgment debtor provide information needed to enforce the judgment. There is no requirement that there be "exceptional circumstances" for such an order to be made.
Background
On 11 June 2014, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China") handed down its ruling in the case of Sino-environment Technology Group Limited ("Sino-environment") v Thumb Env-Tech Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd ("Thumb").
On 9 April 2014, the Commission published proposals to amend the existing Shareholder Rights Directive (2007/36/EC).
Landlords often ask for a rent deposit when they grant a new lease, or consent to an assignment, especially if the incoming tenant is of shaky covenant strength. This provides security against possible future default.
If a tenant becomes insolvent then this is exactly the sort of situation where a landlord would want to make use of a deposit. Where it is in the “commingling” form (i.e. paid to the landlord so that it becomes a debt in favour of the tenant) then that is unproblematic: no restrictions are imposed by the moratorium which arises on the tenant’s insolvency.
On 29 February 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its decision In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986. The appeal addressed the meaning and application of Chapter 7 of the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS 7) issued by the FSA for the safeguarding and distributing of client money in implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC.
Background
Throughout the global economic meltdown, the number of bankruptcy cases in China has risen considerably. To shed light on bankruptcy proceedings and stabilize the domestic economy, the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC issued Opinions on Several Issues Regarding the Proper Adjudication of Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases to Provide a Judicial Safeguard for Maintaining Order in the Market Economy on June 12, 2009. The Opinions direct courts at all levels to properly apply the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (EBL) to assist insolvent enterprises, maintain market order, and stabilize the economy.
The High Court has allowed an application for an order to enable access to a bankrupt’s pension to satisfy debts arising from fraud. Prior to the bankruptcy, judgment was obtained against him for £3.2m plus costs.
The Pensions Regulator's new powers: what lenders need to know Updated August 2021 Pension briefing Following the insolvencies of Carillion and BHS and the associated fallout for the pension schemes they sponsored, the Pensions Regulator (tPR) announced it was going to be “clearer, quicker and tougher”. The Pension Schemes Act 2021 (the Act) gives tPR significant new powers to intervene where the security of defined benefit (DB) pensions may be at risk.