The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) pronounced on double securities in its eagerly anticipated judgment of 1 December 2011 (IX ZR 11/11). The practice was controversial even before the Act for the Modernisation of Limited Liability Company Law and for the Prevention of Abuse (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen, MoMiG) came into force. “Double security” arises where security is provided over a creditor‘s claim both by the company itself and by its shareholders.

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

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.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, Chapter 183C of the General Laws of Massachusetts, is preempted by the high cost home loan provisions of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) for federally chartered depository institutions. The July 27 ruling came in a case brought by Massachusetts residents who had jointly received a home mortgage loan from a national bank.

In an apparent case of first impression in Massachusetts, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that an allonge must be physically affixed to the original promissory note to be effective.

Generally speaking, Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state – meaning that lenders can foreclose on mortgages of Massachusetts property without seeking judicial approval beforehand. In certain circumstances, however, a pre-foreclosure judicial proceeding is required solely to determine whether the borrower is in the active military service and entitled to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §532.

A Massachusetts trial court has denied a borrower’s request to stop a foreclosure proceeding despite the borrower’s claim that the loan was “unfair” under the Massachusetts consumer protection law, Chapter 93A of the General Laws. In its May 13 decision denying the borrower’s request for an injunction, the court examined a stated income (no documentation) loan and determined that the borrower was not likely to prevail on a claim that the loan featured a combination of four characteristics that qualify as “unfair” under Chapter 93A.