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.

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.

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.

Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.