On 27 October 2011, the German parliament adopted the Law for Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Businesses (Gesetz zur Erleichterung der Sanierung von Unternehmen, ESUG), which entered into force on 1 March 2012. In particular, legislators have increased the importance of debtequity swaps as part of this reform. Significant practical obstacles that previously often caused debt-equity transactions to fail have now been removed.
Previous legal framework
A court affirmed the denial of W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos insurance claims against the liquidation estate of Grace’s insolvent excess-of-loss insurer, on the ground that Grace failed to submit timely “absolute” claims under New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Grace, which has been undergoing bankruptcy restructuring, had established a plan with a creditor’s committee to create a trust to pay asbestos claims.
Reliance Insurance Company in Liquidation (the “Liquidator”) petitioned a Pennsylvania state court for a declaratory judgment holding that Aramark Corporation must reimburse certain state guaranty associations (“GAs”) for claims allegedly improperly paid to Aramark and subsequently presented to the Reliance Estate by the GAs for payment. The Liquidator also sought a declaration that Aramark’s claims against the Estate should be given low priority.
An English appellate court permitted an Australian reinsurer in liquidation to enforce a judgment entered in Australian insolvency proceedings against a Lloyd’s syndicate, which had elected not to participate in the foreign proceedings. On appeal, the syndicate argued that England’s reciprocity act did not apply to foreign judgments made in insolvency proceedings, and that England’s insolvency act, which recognizes Australian courts, should be interpreted as strictly permitting only Australian choice of law, rather than the enforcement of Australian judgments.
What information does the insolvency administrator have to provide to creditors?
Introduction
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) in its decision of 17 February 2011 (IX ZR 131/10) has been dealing with the issue which – since the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbrauchen - MoMiG) came into effect – is being controversially discussed as to whether loans by family members (in particular the shareholder’s siblings, spouse and children) in insolvency proceedings will be given subordinate ranking.
The risks facing a lending bank if the borrower becomes insolvent are often twofold. Not only are outstanding repayments in jeopardy, but, in the case of debtor`s insolvency, there is also a risk of voidable preference (Insolvenzanfechtung), where the insolvency administrator may challenge repayments already received and loan collateral granted before the insolvency filing.
Recently, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the request of Washington Mutual and WMI Investment Corp. (collectively the Debtors) for confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plain of Affiliated Debtors. Among a number of issues, the Bankruptcy Court determined that the valuation of a captive reinsurance subsidiary (WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company – currently in run-off), which would serve as the most valuable asset of the proposed reorganized debtor was flawed.
A number of activities of potential significance have occurred in the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act:
Surplus Lines Regulation:
Frontier Insurance, in rehabilitation, filed proofs of claim following the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Black, Davis & Shue Agency. The claims related to captive reinsurance program with Frontier. In turn, Westport Insurance, which had issued a professional liability insurance policy to BDS, objected to Frontier’s claims, asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Frontier moved to dismiss those objections, or in the alternative, for a stay pending a ruling on BDS’s own objections to Frontier’s claims.