On 12 March 2018 the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation to govern the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims (the “Assignment Regulation”).

The proposal of the Assignment Regulation adopted by the European Commission deals with which law applies to determine the effectiveness and perfection of the transfer of title – and the creation of other rights like pledges and charges – in relation to claims and receivables vis-a-vis third parties.

In Germany, securitization SPVs, factoring companies and asset based lenders take security over the leased assets owned by the leasing company by way of a security transfer of title. However, in all cases of a leasing company’s insolvency where the leasing company has still possession of the assets, the owner of the security in the leased assets was in the past not seen as being entitled to realise the value of the assets itself.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).

Under German law, there are strict legal obligations for the managing directors of an insolvent company to file for insolvency. Failure to comply exposes a managing director to civil and criminal liability. It is therefore important for managing directors to know how to test whether their company is insolvent. One of the legal reasons for insolvency is illiquidity and the second senate of the German Federal Civil Court (“BGH”) has, in a decision dated 19 December 2017 (II ZR 88/16), clarified a question regarding the illiquidity test.

A recent ruling of the German Federal Civil Court (Bundesgerichtshof (“BGH”)) is a reminder of the risks which shareholders of a German company can face in an insolvency of their German subsidiary.

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta

On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.

German insolvency laws are very strict. The management of an insolvent company is under strict obligations to file for insolvency, and failure to comply with such obligation may result in civil and criminal liability. Other stakeholders, like financing banks or suppliers, who are dealing with a distressed company, require documentation that their contract partner can be restructured, in order to avoid potential liability and claw back risk in case of a future insolvency.

On 5 April 2017, an amendment to the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung – “InsO”) has come into force which provides for various changes to the avoidance rules and clawback laws in German insolvency proceedings.

The major change affects the right of an insolvency administrator to challenge transactions for willful disadvantage (§ 133 InsO).