The COVID-19 pandemic in Germany is significantly affecting commercial landlords and tenants. The German legislator has taken various measures to mitigate the consequences of officially ordered business closures during lockdown and other pandemic-related adverse effects.
Over the last 12 months, global markets have been amazingly resilient, indeed even buoyant, aided in large part by governments around Europe and the world providing seemingly unlimited funding and extensive financial stabilisation measures, such as quantitative easing.
This, coupled with protective legislation for companies to prevent insolvency filings and to ensure continued trading – for example, moratoriums, relaxations on insolvency filing obligations and restrictions on creditor actions – has given businesses significant breathing space and prevented widespread failures.
On 17 December 2020 the German Parliament has passed the rules on the further development of the German restructuring and insolvency law and it will now enter into force on 1 January 2021. An essential part of the law is the introduction of a corporate stabilisation and restructuring regime, which establishes a legal framework for out-of-court restructurings in Germany on the basis of the EU Restructuring Directive of 20 June 2019 (Directive (EU) 2019/1023) (the Preventive Restructuring Framework).
Where restructuring measures comprising collective redundancies become necessary, the employer must fulfil a number of legal requirements to successfully implement such measures. While it is sometimes tempting to implement the necessary restructuring in a way that ignores the various legal requirements (e.g. co-determination of the works council etc.), there are only exceptional situations in which such a way does not lead to a total failure of the original plan.
Germany's major legal reform aiming to facilitate group insolvencies comes into effect on April 21, 2018 (full German text). The new law allows insolvency proceedings over companies within a corporate group to be concentrated at a single German insolvency court and/or to be administered by one insolvency administrator.
After having implemented stricter anti-bribery and corruption regulations in late 2015 and mid2016, new criminal law provisions regarding confiscation orders and asset recovery will enter into force on 1 July 2017. The present legislation was considered to be insufficient. Further, the law implements European provisions into national law. The law provides new rules for compensation of damaged parties and lower prerequisites for confiscations.
The German Parliament passed an act to reduce the risk of clawback actions and provide more legal certainty in this regard under German law, the so called "Act for the Improvement of Legal Certainty concerning Clawback pursuant to the German Insolvency Code and the Creditor's Avoidance of Transfers Act" (Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtssicherheit bei Anfechtungen nach der Insolvenzordnung und dem Anfechtungsgesetz) on Thursday, 16 February 2017.
License purchases can be excluded from the insolvency administrator’s right to reject or assume contracts
The liability regime under Section 64 sentence 1 GmbHG and Sections 92 para. 2, 93 para. 3 Nr. 6 AktG for payments made after the company’s insolvency imposes severe personal liability risk on the management of limited liability companies and stock corporations. This does not only apply to the management of German limited liability companies (“GmbH”) and stock corporations (“AG”) but also to companies incorporated under foreign law that have their centre of main interest in Germany, as the European Court of Justice has decided just recently.
On February 24, 2016, the legal committee (Rechtsausschuss) of the German parliament (Bundestag) held a hearing on the proposed reform to considerably limit the clawback regime (Insolvenzanfechtung) in the German insolvency code (Insolvenzordnung – InsO). The general gist of hearing was that the current German governing party coalition is still determined to enact the reform, with some modifications as to the scope and protected parties still up for discussion.