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).
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.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.
Judge: Preston
Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever
(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener
Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer
The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.
Judge: Rogers
Appellant: Pro Se
Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt