(Federal Constitutional Court, judgment dated 12 January 2016, case ref. 1 BvR 3102/13)

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has now ruled on whether the exclusion of legal entities from being appointed as insolvency administrator is constitutional or  not in its judgment dated 12 January 2016. The ruling was triggered by a constitutional complaint from a firm of lawyers specialising in insolvency administration, which had previously argued in vain before the civil courts for inclusion by a local court on its pre-selected list of insolvency administrators.

The economically significant investment activity by insurance companies is subject to the regulatory requirements of the German Insurance Supervision Act (Versiche­ rungsaufsichtsgesetz – VAG). With regard to the provisions of the European Solvency II Directive, changes to the requirements for capital investments of insurance companies have resulted from the new VAG which came into effect as of 01 January 2016 (VAG new). This gives us cause to take a look at the most important changes.

A.  Former legal situation

Mit seinem Urteil vom 10. Dezember 2015, Az. C-594 / 14, hat der EuGH entschieden, dass die Haftung eines Geschäftsführers für verbotene Aus- zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife nach §64 GmbHG eine insolvenzrechtliche Regelung darstellt und deshalb dem Anwendungsbereich der EuInsVO unterliegt.

In its ruling dated 10 December 2015, case ref. C-594 / 14, the ECJ decided that the liability of a managing director for prohibited payments following insolvency under section 64 of the GmbHG is a provision covered by insolvency law and therefore falls within the scope of application of the EU Insolvency Regulation.

GAO has issued a report which noted the FDIC and Federal Reserve have developed separate but similar review processes for determining whether a resolution plan, often referred to as a “living will,” is “not credible” or would not facilitate a company’s orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code.

In a decision entered yesterday afternoon, Judge Shelley Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation to reject certain midstream contracts under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and, critically, made a non-binding holding that Sabine’s obligations under these contracts were not “covenants running with the land” under Texas law.

Midstream Companies face increased risk with financially distressed E&P companies

In Venture Bank v. Lapides, 800 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 2015), the Eighth Circuit found that a bank could not recover from its borrower and, in fact, had violated the post-discharge injunction by relying on change in terms agreements which were ineffective to reaffirm a debt discharged in the borrower’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Many creditors (including lenders) have learned the difficult lesson that payments received from a debtor within the 90-day period preceding a bankruptcy filing may be subject to refund as a preferential transfer. Many creditors also know that one of the defenses to a preferential transfer claim is what is referred to as an "ordinary course of business" defense, which excludes payments that are made within the ordinary course of dealing with the creditor and that are consistent with the ordinary practice in the industry.

In a judgment dated 26 / 03 / 2015, ref. no. IX ZR 302 / 13, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a provisional insolvency administrator is personally liable for monies paid into the escrow account in the event of claims of unjust enrichment being made due to the payments having no proper basis in law.

The ruling related to the following situation: