The economically significant investment activity by insurance companies is subject to the regulatory requirements of the German Insurance Supervision Act (Versiche rungsaufsichtsgesetz – VAG). With regard to the provisions of the European Solvency II Directive, changes to the requirements for capital investments of insurance companies have resulted from the new VAG which came into effect as of 01 January 2016 (VAG new). This gives us cause to take a look at the most important changes.
A. Former legal situation
Die Insolvenzanfechtung ist in den letzten Jahren zu einem großen Risiko für Gläubiger geworden. Das gilt in besonderer Weise, wenn man Kenntnis von wirtschaftlichen Schwierigkeiten seines Geschäftspartners hat. In einer aktuellen Entscheidung hat der Bundesgerichtshof die Maßstäbe der Anfechtbarkeit bei außergerichtlichen Sanierungskonzepten umfassend beschrieben – und im Ergebnis die Anfechtungsgefahr verschärft. Da auch die für Herbst 2016 ins Auge gefasste Reform des Anfechtungsrechtes in diesem Bereich keine Änderung bringen wird, ist eine Befassung mit der Entscheidung notwendig.
Background
Pursuant to Sec. 15 para. 1 of the German Insolvency Code (lnsolvenzordnung, lnsO) the managing directors of a company may individually file a request to open insolvency proceedings on behalf of the company, even if they only have joint power of representation together with other managing directors. This special right to file the request on behalf of the company prevails over the general or agreed provisions regarding the power of representation of the directors.
The Rules
milbank.com 1 Client Alert: Close-out Netting Provisions partially held invalid by German Federal Court of Justice General Administrative Act (Allgemeinverfügung) issued by German Federal Supervisory Authority to avoid Legal Uncertainty and Distortions in Financial Markets EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") ruled on 9 June 2016 that contractual close-out netting provisions which deviate from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung) are invalid and section 104 of the German Insolvency Code applies in lieu of the invalid contra
Schweigen des Schuldners als Beleg seiner Zahlungsunfähigkeit
Silent Debtors Prove Their Illiquidity
Directors of English companies that entered into insolvency proceedings in Germany could be liable to reimburse the company under German law for payments made after the company became insolvent.
(German federal high court – decision of September 24th, 2015 – IX ZR 272/13)
Legal background
In accordance with sec. 166 para 1 German Insolvency Code (“InsO”) an insolvency administrator is entitled to utilise tangible assets in his possession, even where the assets are encumbered.
Although the German Insolvency Code regulates the disposal and utilization of tangible assets and claims encumbered in favour of a creditor no regulation exists for rights such as shares, trademarks or intellectual property rights.
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.
Maple Bank GmbH (“Maple”) has operated in Frankfurt, Germany since 1994. The bank acted in the business areas of equity and fixed income trading, repos and securities lending, deposits, structured products and institutional sales. Maple has branches in Germany, Netherlands and Canada and subsidiaries in U.S., U.K. and the Cayman islands. It is part of the Maple Financial Group Inc., a privately held, global financial organisation based in Canada.