The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A pair of bankruptcy court rulings handed down in 2017 widened a rift among the courts on this issue.

Background

Under German law, when a company becomes insolvent or over-indebted, its directors are obliged to file for insolvency. If they fail to fulfil this duty, according to s 64 German limited liability company Act (GmbHG) from this point in time onwards, they have to compensate the company for those payments which (objectively) would not have been made by a prudent businessman. Such imprudence is presumed.

In practice, s 64 is one of the most powerful tools available to insolvency administrators claiming against directors.

The reform of the European insolvency regulation (EIR) comes into force in mid-2017. Inter alia, it will alter the rules on which jurisdiction is competent to open insolvency procedures.

Legal Background

If a debtor needs to file for insolvency, there are two main ways of manipulating the existing legal competence rules:

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.

With one exception, the Top 10 List of "public company" (defined as a company with publicly traded stock or debt) bankruptcies of 2016 consisted entirely of energy companies—solar, coal, and oil and gas producers—reflecting, as in 2015, the dire straits of those sectors caused by weakened worldwide demand and, until their December turnaround, plummeting oil prices. The exception came from the airline industry. Each company gracing the Top 10 List for 2016 entered bankruptcy with assets valued at more than $3 billion.

Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act

The watchword for 2016 in much of the world was "upheaval." Two unanticipated events dominated the political, business, and financial headlines of 2016, at least in Europe and the Americas: the Brexit referendum result and the election of Donald J .Trump as the 45th President of the United States. The refugee crisis, the commodities meltdown, Brazil’s economic collapse, China’s growing pains, Russian belligerency and alleged cyber-meddling in the U.S. election, the war on terrorism, and the beginning of the end of the bloody Syrian civil war seemed to pale by comparison.

Summary

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 10 September 2015, IX ZR 215/13) deals with the question whether the recipient of a payment may be subject to a clawback claim if he returned the received amount to the debtor before the opening of insolvency proceedings.

Background

Introduction

The German FCJ (IX ZR 143/13, 17 December 2015) relates to the requirements and effects of a settlement between an insolvency administrator and the personally liable partners of an insolvent partnership.

Introduction

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 9 June 2016, IX ZR 314/14) relates to the interface between the German master agreement for financial derivative transactions (GMA) and sec. 104 of the German Insolvency Statute (InsO).

Background