In a decision of 9 June 2016, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") has ruled that the determination of the close-out amount in a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions (Rahmenvertrag für Finanztermingeschäfte or DRV) is not legally effective in the event of insolvency to the extent that it deviates from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code.

Key Points

• Court held notice to scheme creditors (here two weeks) was not sufficient in light of complexity of scheme
• Court also highlighted deficiencies in supporting documentation

The Facts

Key points

• Principles applying to exercise of liquidators’ powers are the same as those prior to legislative changes
• Views of creditors influenced by personal considerations to be disregarded
• The overriding requirement is for liquidators to exercise their professional judgment in the best interests of creditors

The facts

Executive Summary The German banking market is on the move. This presents opportunities for foreign investors who would like to enter the German financial market. However, in order to acquire an interest in a German financial institution, i.e. credit or financial services institution, an investor has to comply with a couple of specific regulatory requirements.

Key Points

• Test for personal service of bankruptcy petition same as for claim forms
• Document to be handed to debtor or contents explained and left “with or near” debtor
• Rule 7.55 can be used to remedy any irregularity in service if necessary

The Facts

On 12 February 2016, the German Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, orBaFin) declared Maple Bank GmbH (“Maple”) as an indemnification case, meaning that the German deposit insurance institutions can compensate the bank’s creditors.

BaFin had previously filed an insolvency petition against Maple, and the insolvency court in Frankfurt am Main opened insolvency proceedings on 11 February 2016. It appointed an insolvency administrator who is now responsible for managing Maple’s affairs.

Key Points

• Court considers the impact of the Spanish Insolvency Act on guarantees governed by English law
• Court holds that the liability under the guarantee was not extinguished

The Facts

Key Points

• An administrator may be able appeal an order restoring a company following dissolution
• The court has jurisdiction to backdate a winding up order made following restoration to the date of dissolution
• The court must exercise its discretion to do so with extreme caution

The Facts

Client Connection Limited (“Company”) was placed into administration and Ms Sharma (“A”) was appointed as administrator. Following a pre-pack sale of the business of the Company, A moved the Company to dissolution.

Key Points

• Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
• Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation

The Facts

Key points

• Section 236 (inquiry into company’s dealings) does not have extra-territorial effect
• Section 237(3) (examination) only has extra-territorial effect where appropriate machinery exists in the foreign jurisdiction
• Taking of Evidence Regulation not available where litigation not commenced or contemplated

The facts