Situation before Brexit

Currently, a UK court’s decision to open insolvency proceedings, and the subsequent proceedings, are automatically recognised under Articles 16 and 17 of the European Insolvency Regulation.

Recognition of insolvency proceedings

After Brexit, it is most likely that the UK will be treated as a non-Member State (unless the UK reaches any special agreement with the EU).

Summary

In April 2017, important changes were effected in connection with German insolvency law and the avoidance of certain antecedent transactions.

Case law had greatly increased the risk of insolvency administrators successfully clawing back assets from creditors of the insolvent entity, which the reforms now address.

Background

For a clawback claim based on intent (Vorsatzanfechtung) to succeed, an insolvency administrator has to prove that:

German insolvency law contains provisions that allow for the challenge of payments/securitisation of certain shareholder loans in insolvency proceedings. The reason for this is that under German insolvency law, a loan repayment claim of a shareholder against ‘his’ corporation is subordinated by law (sec. 39 para. 1 no. 5 German Insolvency Code).

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).