On February 24, 2016, the legal committee (Rechtsausschuss) of the German parliament (Bundestag) held a hearing on the proposed reform to considerably limit the clawback regime (Insolvenzanfechtung) in the German insolvency code (Insolvenzordnung – InsO). The general gist of hearing was that the current German governing party coalition is still determined to enact the reform, with some modifications as to the scope and protected parties still up for discussion.

A key objective of the current German coalition government is the reform of the clawback provisions in the German Insolvency Act (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 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 the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).

The Court of Appeal1 has ruled that foreign judgments in insolvency proceedings may be enforced by the English courts at common law, and that the ordinary principles which may prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments do not apply to insolvency judgments where the action from which the foreign judgment arises is integral to the collective nature of the insolvency proceedings.

Facts

In a recent case1 the High Court held that the purported out of court appointment of administrators over a Guernsey registered limited partnership was void because the appointor used the incorrect form when giving notice of its intention to appoint.

Background