Background

Under German law, when a company becomes insolvent or over-indebted, its directors are obliged to file for insolvency. If they fail to fulfil this duty, according to s 64 German limited liability company Act (GmbHG) from this point in time onwards, they have to compensate the company for those payments which (objectively) would not have been made by a prudent businessman. Such imprudence is presumed.

In practice, s 64 is one of the most powerful tools available to insolvency administrators claiming against directors.

The reform of the European insolvency regulation (EIR) comes into force in mid-2017. Inter alia, it will alter the rules on which jurisdiction is competent to open insolvency procedures.

Legal Background

If a debtor needs to file for insolvency, there are two main ways of manipulating the existing legal competence rules:

“[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).

Summary

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 10 September 2015, IX ZR 215/13) deals with the question whether the recipient of a payment may be subject to a clawback claim if he returned the received amount to the debtor before the opening of insolvency proceedings.

Background

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).

Introduction

The German FCJ (IX ZR 143/13, 17 December 2015) relates to the requirements and effects of a settlement between an insolvency administrator and the personally liable partners of an insolvent partnership.

Introduction

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 9 June 2016, IX ZR 314/14) relates to the interface between the German master agreement for financial derivative transactions (GMA) and sec. 104 of the German Insolvency Statute (InsO).

Background

Background

In Germany, corporate entities are not allowed to act as insolvency administrators (sec 56 I 1 Insolvency Code). Instead, the insolvency court selects and appoints experienced individuals.

Legal background

Under German criminal law, it is illegal for the management not to fulfil tax obligations when due, whereas under German insolvency law a company must treat all creditors equally when the company is illiquid. By paying taxes after the company becomes illiquid, the management would violate this obligation and prefer the state.