LE PRINCIPE DE PRIMAUTE DU DROIT COMMUNAUTAIRE NE SAURAIT FAIRE ECHEC AUX REGLES TRES RESTRICTIVES DE DROIT INTERNE DES PROCEDURES COLLECTIVES (CASS. COM., 23 AVRIL 2013, F-P+B, N°12-19.184)
Government bonds were long considered a safe investment that offered the potential for high returns. However, after Argentina announced in 2002 that it would no longer service its bond debt and after Greece restructured its sovereign debt in March and December 2012, the question arises as to what investors can do to avoid the significant losses of capital (up to 70% in case of Argentina and over 80% in case of Greece) which almost always accompany sovereign debt restructurings.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) continued with its extensive interpretation of the rules for contesting transactions under insolvency law in a judgment dated 21 February 2013 (BGH IX ZR 32/12). In the case before the court, direct shareholder A in company T sold a claim under a loan to B at below par value. Following assignment, T repaid the loan to B at the nominal amount plus interest. Insolvency proceedings were opened around two months later in relation to T’s assets. The BGH’s decision covers three aspects:
A. Bill of the “Law on shielding credit institutions and financial groups against risks and planning their restructuring and winding-up”
In a recent case decided by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2012 – IX ZR 169 / 11), an energy supplier had entered into a contract with a customer “which should also terminate without notice if the customer makes an application for insolvency or where preliminary insolvency proceedings are initiated or opened based on an application by a creditor”. When the customer was forced to declare insolvency, the energy supplier and the customer’s insolvency administrator entered into a new energy-supply contract at higher rates, subject to a review of the legal position.
Under the new liability standard set out in section 64 sentence 3 of the GmbHG, which was introduced by the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), the managing director of a company is liable for payments to shareholders which necessarily cause the insolvency of the company. The requirement for causality of the payment for insolvency and actual determination of insolvency were matters of dispute. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now established clarity on both points (judgment of 9 October 2012 II ZR 298 / 11).
PROCEDURE INTERNATIONALE D’INSOLVABILITE
SEUL LE TRIBUNAL QUI OUVRE LA PROCEDURE PRINCIPALE A L’ENCONTRE D’UNE PERSONNE MORALE EST COMPETENT POUR PRONONCER UNE INTERDICTION DE GERER CONTRE LE DIRIGEANT DE CELLE-CI (CASS.COM. 22 JANVIER 2013 N°11-17.968 (N°55 F-PB), MAJOT C/ STE BECHERET- THIERRY-SENECHAL- GORRIAS ES. QUAL.)
The Madrid Provincial Court (Section 28) ruling of December 7, 2012, and the Barcelona Provincial Court (Section 15) ruling of October 4, 2012, judged the insolvency categorisation of a credit the receivers had categorised as subordinate because they held that the creditor company belonged to the same corporate group as the insolvent company.6 In both cases, the provincial courts analysed the concept of group for the purposes of insolvency before and after the reform of the Insolvency Act introduced under Act 38/2011.
The Supreme Court clarified the insolvency categorisation for interest rate swap contracts, classifying them as insolvency credits, as they fail to meet the functional synallagma requirement, which establishes functional reciprocal obligations.
Compensation of a debt made after the debtor’s bankruptcy declaration via the appropriation of securities pledged by virtue of a financial guarantee, is admitted.
The validity of a transaction assessed as “compensation” that was carried out after the bankruptcy declaration of the company in debt was questioned before the Supreme Court. The credit entity applied the value obtained from the reimbursement of an investment fund that had been pledged to secure a credit policy to reduce the debt.