Introduction

Inspired by the American “prepackaged restructuring plan,” the French authorities have yet again decided to reform French insolvency law, with the creation of an “accelerated financial safeguard procedure” (procédure de Sauvegarde Financière Accélérée). This procedure is available to debtors who start conciliation proceedings after 1 March 2011.

When it comes to securing enforcement, it is worth thinking outside the box, and looking at what can be done overseas: the French procedure code offers to litigants the ability to obtain the Court's authorization to perform conservatory measures which freeze your debtor's assets, by way of security, for the ultimate enforcement and performance of judgments made in substantive proceedings.

On 7 November 2014, OW Bunker A/S (“OW”), a global supplier and trader of marine fuel, filed for bankruptcy in Denmark. Further bankruptcies of OW subsidiaries and affiliates swiftly followed, including the bankruptcy of certain U.S. and Singapore-based OW entities.

The case of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd was heard in Singapore recently, with judgment handed down by the High Court on 9 June 2015.

Of significance to liquidators and underlining the importance of this case to the insolvency profession in Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming stated that “it is undeniable that litigation funding has an especially useful role to play in insolvency situations”.

Key Points This decision brings clarity to liquidators taking appointments in Singapore on a number of aspects.

When goods are delivered to a professional storage operator (we will refer to them as a warehouseman) for safe keeping, they may become subject to a lien. A lien is a security right which gives the warehouseman rights over the goods that can take precedence over the rights of others, including the owner. The warehouseman is entitled to exercise the lien when he or she is left unpaid for services rendered and in so doing will gain legal control over the goods.

On 16 December 2016 an act amending the insolvency laws applicable to financial derivatives transactions passed the Bundesrat (the second chamber of the German legislature). The new law was finalised only six months after the German Federal Court of Justice passed its landmark judgment that held a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions to be partially ineffective in the event of insolvency.

In a decision of 9 June 2016, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") has ruled that the determination of the close-out amount in a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions (Rahmenvertrag für Finanztermingeschäfte or DRV) is not legally effective in the event of insolvency to the extent that it deviates from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code.

On 12 February 2016, the German Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, orBaFin) declared Maple Bank GmbH (“Maple”) as an indemnification case, meaning that the German deposit insurance institutions can compensate the bank’s creditors.

BaFin had previously filed an insolvency petition against Maple, and the insolvency court in Frankfurt am Main opened insolvency proceedings on 11 February 2016. It appointed an insolvency administrator who is now responsible for managing Maple’s affairs.

German insolvency law, unlike US insolvency law, only recently introduced (in 2012) the so-called protective shield proceedings (Schutzschirmverfahren) to enable potentially illiquid and/or over-indebted debtors to restructure the company on the basis of a so-called insolvency plan. Thereby, the liquidation of a company by a future insolvency administrator can be avoided.

Last year, the German government came forward with a ministerial bill for the reform of the German insolvency regulations with regard to licenses. The bill will most likely be enacted in the year 2009.