On 21 April 2018, new rules regarding the handling of “group” insolvency proceedings of companies in Germany become effective.

The regulations aim at better coordination between separate insolvency proceedings which must be implemented for every company within a group under German insolvency rulings. Up to now, coordination was quite difficult, due to separate responsibilities of different courts and insolvency administrators.

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

Summary

In May 2017, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), Az. XI ZR 571/15, has given its views for the first time on bridging loans (Überbrückungskredite) and their validity in a restructuring scenario.

Summary

The German Federal Court of Finance (BFH) has recently decided on the tax treatment of profits resulting from debt waived in the course of a company´s restructuring (case file no. GrS 1/15, 28 November 2016).

The BFH:

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

Summary

The German Federal Court has recently examined the treatment of shareholder loans and how these creditor claims are classified in the event of a company’s insolvency (decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dated 13 October 2016 (file no. IX ZR 184/14)).

Background

On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.

Background

Pursuant to Sec. 15 para. 1 of the German Insolvency Code (lnsolvenzordnung, lnsO) the managing directors of a company may individually file a request to open insolvency proceedings on behalf of the company, even if they only have joint power of representation together with other managing directors. This special right to file the request on behalf of the company prevails over the general or agreed provisions regarding the power of representation of the directors.

The Rules