30 декабря 2021 Федеральная налоговая служба опубликовала обзор судебной практики арбитражных судов по оспариванию сделок в процедуре банкротства[1].
В обзоре содержатся актуальная судебная практика арбитражных судов федеральных округов и Верховного Суда РФ, позиции из которой необходимо учитывать при оспаривании сделок в рамках банкротных процедур.
Background
When the validity of an agreed interest rate is the subject of a dispute between the parties to a loan agreement in Germany, the insolvency courts do not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. This is something only the civil courts can do.
Impact
If lenders provide sufficient evidence of the loan interest amount, ie usually the loan agreement, the debtor is required to prove that the interest rate contradicts public policy or is unreasonably high.
Die anhaltenden Auswirkungen der Covid-19-Pandemie auf die Hotelbranche und eine mögliche Restrukturierungsoption
Über zwei Jahre nach Ausbruch der Covid-19-Pandemie sind deren Auswirkungen auf die deutsche Wirtschaft immer noch deutlich spürbar. Insbesondere die Hotelbranche ist von der sogenannten 4. Welle, den derzeitigen Rekordinzidenzen sowie den damit verbundenen staatlich angeordneten Einschränkungen wie 2G (Plus)- bzw. 3G-Regelungen weiterhin stark betroffen.
In 2021, the German legislator changed the rules of conduct by inserting a further section into the German Insolvency Code (InsO).
Background
In a recent judgment on directors’ liability, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf) held that startup companies are not deemed to be overindebted if they are receiving adequate finance from their shareholders or third parties.
Background
Federal Court of Justice, Judgment of 24 August 2021, Case No. X ZR 59/19 (BPatG) – Oscillating Drive
In the underlying case, the Federal Patent Court had dismissed the nullity actions of four separate plaintiffs against the German part of a European patent (judgment of 26 February 2019, case no. 3 Ni 29/17). All four plaintiffs appealed against this decision to the Federal Court of Justice.
Bundesgerichtshof, Urteil v. 24. August 2021, Az. X ZR 59/19 (BPatG) – Oszillationsantrieb
Im zugrundeliegenden Fall hatte das Bundespatentgericht die Nichtigkeitsklagen von insgesamt vier Klägern gegen den deutschen Teil eines Europäischen Patents abgewiesen (Urteil v. 26. Februar 2019, Az. 3 Ni 29/17). Alle vier Kläger legten hiergegen Berufung zum Bundesgerichtshof ein.
The German court has published LG München I v. 13.07.2021 - 6 O 17571/20 – the first published ruling on COVInsAG. We unpack the key takeaways from the decision below.
Background
To mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic, the German government passed the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG) to temporarily suspend the obligation on directors to file for insolvency where the debtor's insolvency was due to the pandemic. The COVInsAG (Section 2(1) Nos.2 and 4) also suspends large parts of the rules on insolvency avoidance.
The German Act on the Stabilisation and Restructuring Framework for Business (StaRUG) came into force on 1 January 2021, incorporating the EU Restructuring Directive into German law. It provides the first pre-insolvency restructuring framework for the reorganisation of companies facing "imminent illiquidity" and the possibility of involving dissenting creditors. The restructuring plan – which is very similar to the English Scheme of Arrangement and the German insolvency plan – is the central instrument.
Section 1 StaRUG
With the Act on the Temporary Suspension of the Insolvency Filing Obligation Due to Heavy Rainfall and Floods in July 2021 (Gesetz zur vorübergehenden Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht wegen Starkregenfällen und Hochwassern im Juli 2021), which is part of the Reconstruction Assistance Act 2021 (Aufbauhilfegesetzes 2021), the German Federal Parliament and the German Federal Council have decided to suspend the obligation to file for insolvency retroactively as of 10 July 2021.