On March 3 2015 the Hamburg Local Court (67a IN 400/14) expressly contradicted the Bremen Regional Court's August 14 2011 decision (2 T 435/11) regarding whether vessels are protected from arrest during preliminary insolvency proceedings (for further details please see "Are vessels protected from arrest du

In a judgment dated 26 / 03 / 2015, ref. no. IX ZR 302 / 13, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a provisional insolvency administrator is personally liable for monies paid into the escrow account in the event of claims of unjust enrichment being made due to the payments having no proper basis in law.

The ruling related to the following situation:

Mit Urteil vom 26. März 2015, AZ IX ZR 302 / 13, entschied der BGH, dass ein vorläufiger Insolvenzver- walter für Zahlungen auf das Voll- rechtstreuhandkonto persönlich haf- tet, wenn Bereicherungsansprüche wegen rechtsgrundloser Zahlungen geltend gemacht werden.

Dieser Entscheidung lag folgender Sachverhalt zu Grunde:

Stillhalten oder Einfordern?

A key objective of the current German coalition government is the reform of the clawback provisions in the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung – InsO). To address this, the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection recently published a draft bill for discussion. The German government is expected to remain in office until 2017, making it highly likely that this reform will become law, in the course of 2015-2016.

Background and objective of the reform

German Federal Court of Justice decision paves the way for bond restructurings under 2009 Bonds Act.

This post addresses the question of how retention of title (“ROT”) provisions are effectively agreed to as part of the contractual relationship between a supplier and its German customer under German law.

German insolvency case law on intellectual property rights has experienced rapid development in recent years, while attempts by the German legislature to regulate this subject with precision have repeatedly failed. The multitude of stakeholders involved (among them insolvency administrators, licensors, sub-licensees and creditors that have liens on IP rights) could not agree on a resolution acceptable to all.

In a situation where the survival of a German company depends on restructuring measures by third parties (mainly lenders) who fear that the shareholders may use their hold-out position in a potential subsequent exit by sale of the shares, it is an option for the lenders to demand from the shareholders that the shares are transferred to a trustee to be held in a “double-sided trust” (doppelnützige Treuhand).

The German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) will soon issue a decision on the constitutionality of Sec. 56 of the German Insolvency Statute. According to Sec. 56, only independent natural persons can be appointed as insolvency administrators. Thus, accounting firms, law firms, and tax consulting firms cannot act as insolvency administrators. In 2013, a German law firm lodged a constitutional complaint asserting that this provision infringed its right of equality before law as well as its right of occupational freedom.