Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge has caused countless disputes between pledgees and insolvency administrators. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.

Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge between pledgees and insolvency administrators has caused countless disputes. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.

One year ago when the German out-of-court restructuring regime, StaRUG, came into force, people hoped for it to be the beginning of a new viable rescue culture in Germany.

Whilst generally not public, it appears there have been substantially more professional articles covering StaRUG than cases themselves (believed to be around 10-20 for the year).

Payment Orders were originally introduced in the CPC as a fast track route for creditors holding a financial instrument, such as a letter of credit or cheque, to obtain judgment against their debtor for what is a simple and indisputable debt. Payment Orders were rarely issued by the onshore UAE courts. In 2018, Cabinet Resolution No 57 of 2018 (the “2018 Cabinet Resolution”) significantly expanded the scope of application of Payment Orders by extending them to all admitted debts rather than simply those arising out of financial instruments only.

The new German stabilizing and out of court restructuring regime came into effect on 1 January 2021. The "Stabilization and Restructuring Framework of Companies Act", known as StaRUG1, heralds a new phase in the German restructuring landscape, introducing a framework of tools including a new restructuring plan, which will enable debtors to restructure and cram down minority creditors outside of German insolvency proceedings for the first time.

The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.

The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.

In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.

Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.

What is set off?

Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

No duty of care owed for negligent bank reference to undisclosed principal

The Supreme Court has held that a bank which negligently provided a favourable credit reference for one of its customers did not owe a duty of care to an undisclosed principal who acted on that reference.