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.

In its recently issued decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, a 7-1 majority of the Supreme Court has clarified that intentionally fraudulent transfers designed to hinder or defraud creditors can fall within the definition of “actual fraud” under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and can sometimes result in corresponding liabilities being non-dischargeable in a personal bankruptcy proceeding.¹

In a March 29, 2016 decision,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") held that creditors are preempted from asserting state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbors" that, among other things, exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security (here, in the context of a leveraged buyout ("LBO")), from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for distribution to creditors.

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.

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.

On January 4, 2016, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) deviated from SDNY precedent and held that, despite the absence of clear Congressional intent, the avoidance powers provided for under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code can be applied extraterritorially. As a result, a fraudulent transfer of property of a debtor’s estate that occurs outside of the United States can be recovered under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On December 14, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that claims arising from securities of a debtor’s affiliate must be subordinated to all claims or interests senior or equal to claims of the same type as the underlying securities in the bankruptcy proceeding.

On October 28, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision that significantly expands the jurisdictional bases that foreign issuers can rely upon to obtain relief in the United States under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.¹ The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its

On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).