The German Government has introduced a reform of the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung– InsO) in order to further facilitate business restructurings in Germany.

In Germany, the restructuring of companies or groups in financial crisis is subject to significant tax risks.

It has become common in financings for companies to utilise a capital structure with multiple layers or tranches of debt.

One thing companies often overlook in a restructuring plan is the role of communications.

Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code enables debtors that are already subject to a foreign insolvency proceeding to receive assistance from US courts in order to protect and administer their property located in the United States.

The turmoi l that rocked many commercial banks during the most recent recession should serve as a warning sign to savvy borrowers that they must be proactive and explore new financing opportunities, not only to address their own credit issues, but also to avoid potential problems with their existing lenders.

A recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed that where an individual, Mr X, acts as director of company A, and company A is the sole director of company B, that will not necessarily make Mr X a “de facto” director of company B.

The Court decided that the mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director was not enough to render the individual a de-facto director, “something more” would be required, such as the director holding himself out in correspondence as a director of company B.

Rainy Sky SA et al v Kookmin Bank [2010] All ER (D) 255 (May) In our Spring 2010 e-news we reported on the case of Kookmin Bank which dealt with the interpretation of a refund guarantee between Kookmin Bank (the “Bank”) and the customer of an insolvent shipyard. The Bank issued a refund guarantee to secure obligations assumed by its customer Jinse Shipbuilding (the “Builder”). The agreement required the Bank to repay on demand all of the instalments paid by the buyer, Rainy Sky, on the occurrence of a default event under the refund guarantee.

Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) outlaws pay when paid provisions, with one exception. It is permissible for a Contractor to use a pay when paid provision to deny payment of outstanding amounts due to its Sub-contractor where the Client at the top of the supply chain has gone bust. The general consensus is of course that this exception is unfair. It is essentially asking the Sub-contractors to act as insurers of both the main Contractor and Client insolvency.

With the flood of debt-heavy capital structures created over the past decade, bankruptcy courts have been left to clean up the remnants of many failed transactions. Given the volume of debt provided, courts are likely to continue to be called upon to determine the relative rights of creditors that result from multi-tiered debt structures.