In four judgments of 26 June 2012, case refs.: XI ZR 259 / 11, XI ZR 316 / 11, XI ZR 355 / 10 and XI ZR 356 / 10, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has again stated its position on the question of when there is a duty to disclose commission. In all four cases the investors purchased certificates from the same defendant bank to invest different amounts and these certificates turned out to be largely worthless following the insolvency of the issuer (Lehman Brothers Treasury Co. B.V.) and the guarantor (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.) in September 2008.

In two recent judgments, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with the resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion of a land charge and the resistance to insolvency of the claim for restitution of higher or equal ranking land charges which has been assigned for security purposes. Abandoning its existing case law, the BGH answered the question of resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion from the register as per section 1179a of the German Civil Code in the affirmative in its judgment dated 27 April 2012 (BGH, judgment of 27.04.2012 – V ZR 270 / 10).

A third court confirms that settlement payments are still settlement payments and early redemptions of notes prior to maturity are exempted from preference actions.

Yesterday (September 12, 2012) the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas provided an excellent lesson on the need to know what sauce is going into the stew that governs privileged communications in bankruptcy proceedings.[1]

In the case of In re Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California heard arguments on September 4, 2012, as to whether the alleged debtor, a tribal casino, was eligible for bankruptcy protection. The court concluded the casino was not an eligible debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

Whether you are a John Donne, Ernest Hemingway or Metallica fan, the above clause rings a bell. Last week the Court of Appeal for Western Australia joined those “Riding the Lighting” and provided its own musings on “For Whom the Bells Tolls” down under. Rather than affirming that the bell tolls for the infamous Spanish guerrilla fighters or a tortured metaphysical poet, the Australian court provided a new answer: The Bell [decision] tolls for “would be” secured lenders.

On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553, (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).

As NASA engineers breathe a sigh of relief after the “seven minutes of terror” that was the rover Curiosity’s landing on Mars, recipients of payments under commodity forward contracts can—at least in the Fifth Circuit—rest assured that agreements that meet the basic definition of forward contract contained in section 101(25) of the Bankruptcy Code will be protected from preference liability should their counterparties find themselves in bankruptcy. Last Thursday, in Lightfoot v. MXEnegry Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. Aug.

Now everything will be better! The new ESUG legislation which entered into force on 1 March 2012 has generated huge expectations. The somewhat unwieldy title of “Law for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Businesses” covers a raft of significant changes to the Insolvency Act and existing restructuring regulations. Its objectives are ambitious. The ESUG is intended to make business restructuring easier, more effective and faster – thus a press release from the Federal Ministry of Justice dated 23 February 2012.

In insolvency proceedings, claims for repayment of shareholder loans – particularly if granted to a company limited by shares or a limited commercial partnership – are generally subordinate. In its judgment of 15 November 2011 (II ZR 6/11), the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) addressed whether and for what period this also applied to corresponding claims by former shareholders.