Facts

German insolvency law contains provisions that allow for the challenge of payments/securitisation of certain shareholder loans in insolvency proceedings. The reason for this is that under German insolvency law, a loan repayment claim of a shareholder against ‘his’ corporation is subordinated by law (sec. 39 para. 1 no. 5 German Insolvency Code).

Brexit is now a reality; what lies ahead for restructuring and insolvency law? These views are limited to English law and do not apply to credit institutions and insurance undertakings, which are subject to their own regimes in the UK and across the EU.

What, when, how? No change in the short term

Based on a referral by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) the ECJ held that provisions such as § 64 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG) which regulates the personal liability of German GmbH directors in cases of insolvency, can be regarded as an insolvency law rule by virtue of Art. 4 para. 1 European Insolvency Regulation. The provision can therefore be applicable to a UK limited company (having its centre of main interest in Germany) and its director respectively, in accordance with European law: according to Art. 4 para.

Daycare company Estro was declared bankrupt in July 2014, but the undertaking was relaunched immediately, as the relaunch was prepared in a ‘pre-pack’ insolvency. All 3600 employees of the bankrupt company were dismissed by the administrator. About 2600 employees were immediately employed again by the relaunched company, which company was a so called ‘connected party’ as the shareholder also held a substantial part of the shares of Estro.

Legal background

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 concerns insolvency proceedings with debtors which operate cross-border in the EU.

Broadly, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings is the law of the member state in which the insolvency proceedings are opened. This includes rules relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts which are detrimental to all creditors; article 4.

The Dutch shrimp factory Heiploeg was declared bankrupt in November 2014. The undertaking was relaunched immediately, as the relaunch was prepared in a ‘pre-pack’ construction. All 180 employees of the bankrupt company were dismissed by the administrator. 120 employees were immediately employed again by the relaunched company, but on different employment conditions.

Key Point

The ECJ has outlined how the protection afforded to a counterparty by Article 13 of the European Insolvency regulation works where an insolvency officeholder challenges a transaction governed by a law different from the one which applies to the insolvency of the estate generally.

Facts

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has made a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the question of whether a director of an English limited company which predominantly operated its business in Germany and over the assets of which insolvency proceedings have been opened in Germany, pursuant to Art 3 para 1 European Insolvency Regulation, can, like the director of a German GmbH, be held liable for forbidden payments pursuant to German corporate law or insolvency law.

Key points

• Where main proceedings have been opened in one member state, secondary proceedings may be opened in another member state where the debtor has an establishment. The effects of the secondary proceedings shall be restricted to the assets in that territory.  
• Local law and court discretion may apply to the opening of secondary proceedings and may be exercised, but these should not be discriminatory.

The Facts