Until recently, an appeal to enter debt restructuring in proceedings opposing a bankruptcy order was not allowed by the Dutch lower courts. In a ground-breaking ruling on 26 March 2021, the Dutch Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2021:460) put an end to this practice.
The case
On 11 February 2021, the English High Court confirmed in gategroup Guarantee Limited that restructuring plans are insolvency proceedings so are not covered by the Lugano Convention.
One of the debt instruments subject to the gategroup restructuring plan contains an exclusive Swiss court jurisdiction clause. Under the Lugano Convention, proceedings relating to "civil and commercial matters" must generally be brought in the jurisdiction benefitting from the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
A draft bill published on 19 September 2020 intends to further develop the existing restructuring and insolvency law in Germany.
It includes fundamental amendments to German insolvency and restructuring law to stabilise the restructuring of businesses. It also ratifies the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Counsel 20 June 2019 on restructuring and insolvency into German national law. The draft bill will come into force on 1 January 2021.
What does this mean for debtors and creditors?
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) recently decided that an insolvency administrator must not rely on the business judgment rule laid down in section 93(1) of the German Companies Act. Section 93(1) provides that a director is not liable to the company if the director reasonably believes that he is well-informed and is acting in the best interests of the company.
The number of bankruptcies in the Netherlands is rising.
Therefore, in mid-April, a number of professors, insolvency practitioners, employers and labour unions petitioned to accelerate the introduction of WHOA (Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord – the Act on Dutch Court Confirmation of Extrajudicial Restructuring Plans to Avert Bankruptcy), the introduction of which was already planned.
Das Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 hat Deutschland infiziert. Auch solide Unternehmen drohen in Folge dessen unverschuldet in die Krise zu stürzen. Während die operativen Tätigkeiten aufgrund der Isolierung ganzer Belegschaften oder gesprengten Lieferketten vorübergehend eingestellt werden, bleiben Verbindlichkeiten wie Miete, Gehälter, Sozialabgaben und Kapitaldienst in rechtlicher Hinsicht gegen das Coronavirus immun. Fortlaufende Fixkosten denen kein operatives Ergebnis gegenübersteht, belasten die Liquidität und stellen einen existenzbedrohenden Angriff für jede Unternehmensfinanzierung dar.
Das BAG begehrt in seiner Vorlage an den EuGH vom 16.10.2018 (Az.: 3 AZR 139/17) die Klärung der Frage, in welchem Rahmen der Erwerber eines Betriebs aus der Insolvenz des Veräußerers für Betriebsrenten gemäß § 613a BGB übergegangener Arbeitnehmer haften muss und ob seine bislang praktizierte erwerberfreundliche teleologische Reduktion des § 613a Abs. 1 BGB in diesem Zusammenhang unionsrechtskonform ist.
I. Einleitung
Key points
The High Court struck out a claim by a liquidator who had already brought a claim arising from the same facts against the same defendants.
The court relied on the fact that the economic benefit of pursuing the claim would accrue only to the liquidator.
The Facts
The facts
The Applicant granted two guarantees to a bank in 2006 and 2007 in respect of two facility letters. The bank assigned the Second Facility and the benefit of the First Guarantee to the Respondent. The amounts due under the Second Facility fell due for payment on 31 March 2008 and were only demanded for payment in 2015.
In a ruling issued on 3 March 2022 (IX ZR 78/20) the German Federal Court (BGH) has again raised the requirements for proving that a debtor, when making a payment, intended to disadvantage their creditors.
Background