Summary

Once again, since spring 2020, the German legislator is adapting fundamental provisions of German insolvency law. Find out here what this is about and what implications the changes have for enterprises.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the obligation for businesses in Germany to file for insolvency was temporarily suspended by the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG). Accompanied by financial support measures, the German government wanted to counter the economic effects of the pandemic and enable companies to survive.

Introduction

Germany’s planned Stabilization and Restructuring Framework (Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen) is essentially an independent, out-of-court tool to implement a restructuring process by means of a restructuring plan in order to avert insolvency proceedings. The debtor and supporting creditors can rely on certain procedural assistance in order to implement and enforce a restructuring plan with their majority despite resistance on the part of individual stakeholders.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced on 24 September 2020 (view announcement here) the introduction from 1 January 2021 of an innovative new restructuring process for Australian small incorporated businesses with liabilities less than AUD1 million, which adopts key aspects of the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy process.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The German Parliament passed an act to reduce the risk of clawback actions and provide more legal certainty in this regard under German law, the so called "Act for the Improvement of Legal Certainty concerning Clawback pursuant to the German Insolvency Code and the Creditor's Avoidance of Transfers Act" (Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtssicherheit bei Anfechtungen nach der Insolvenzordnung und dem Anfechtungsgesetz) on Thursday, 16 February 2017.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.