(BVerfG, Beschluss vom 12.01.2016, Az. 1 BvR 3102/13)

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat sich per Beschluss vom 12. Januar 2016 zu der Frage geäußert, ob der Ausschluss juristischer Personen von der Bestellung als Insolvenzverwalter verfassungsgemäß ist oder nicht. Anlass war die Verfassungsbeschwer- de einer auf Insolvenzverwaltung spezialisierten Gesellschaft von Rechtsanwälten, welche zuvor die Aufnahme auf die Vorauswahlliste für Insolvenzverwalter eines Amtsgerichts vergeblich vor den Zivilgerichten zu erstreiten versucht hatte.

(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.

Landlords contemplating terminating a lease with a distressed tenant in advance of a possible tenant bankruptcy will want to consider carefully a recent decision from the Seventh Circuit. The decision, In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP, reversed and remanded a bankruptcy court decision in favor of a landlord.

Every Massachusetts homeowner should be aware of the opportunities that are available for protecting the equity in the family home. A recent bankruptcy case, In re: Nealon, reminds us of one such opportunity – the Massachusetts homestead exemption — and its power to stave off creditors, especially when the homeowner takes the simple steps necessary to maximize the amount entitled to protection.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in the case of Cyber Solutions International LLC v. Pro Marketing Sales, Inc. Although the decision blazes no new legal territory, the facts of the case and rulings offer important lessons for both lenders and licensees.

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:

Mit Urteil vom 26. März 2015, AZ IX ZR 302 / 13, entschied der BGH, dass ein vorläufiger Insolvenzver- walter für Zahlungen auf das Voll- rechtstreuhandkonto persönlich haf- tet, wenn Bereicherungsansprüche wegen rechtsgrundloser Zahlungen geltend gemacht werden.

Dieser Entscheidung lag folgender Sachverhalt zu Grunde: