Mit außerordentlichem Engagement treibt das Bundesministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (BMJV) aktuell das Gesetz zur Abmilderung der Folgen der COVID-19-Pandemie im Zivil-, Insolvenz- und Strafverfahrensrecht voran. Weniger als zwei Wochen nach Beginn der weitreichenden Einschränkungen des öffentlichen Lebens und auch der Wirtschaft in Deutschland aufgrund der COVID-19-Pandemie soll es nun verabschiedet werden.

The German government announced that it will expand the KfW financing programme.

Seit dem 1. Januar 2019 haben Schuldner bei Vorliegen bestimmter Voraussetzungen neu die Möglichkeit, mittels eines Gesuchs zu verlangen, dass ungerechtfertigte Betreibungen nicht auf dem Betreibungsregisterauszug ersichtlich sind. Neben dieser neuen Möglichkeit hat das Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG) zusätzliche kleinere Änderungen erfahren, welche in diesem Beitrag kurz aufgezeigt werden.

Background

The German Insolvency Act says an insolvency administrator may sell a "moveable object" on which a right to separate satisfaction (Absonderungsrecht) exists if such object is in his possession. The right to separate satisfaction entitles creditors with such a right to be satisfied ahead of all other creditors from the proceeds of selling a separate pool of assets within the insolvent estate

In Germany, securitization SPVs, factoring companies and asset based lenders take security over the leased assets owned by the leasing company by way of a security transfer of title. However, in all cases of a leasing company’s insolvency where the leasing company has still possession of the assets, the owner of the security in the leased assets was in the past not seen as being entitled to realise the value of the assets itself.

On 5 April 2017, an amendment to the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung – “InsO”) has come into force which provides for various changes to the avoidance rules and clawback laws in German insolvency proceedings.

The major change affects the right of an insolvency administrator to challenge transactions for willful disadvantage (§ 133 InsO).

In Erwood v Official Assignee [2015] NZCA 478 an application was made to review a decision declining to dispense with security for costs.  The applicant, Mr Erwood, argued that he had demonstrated impecuniosity, and that the Registrar had erred in finding to the contrary.

Mr Erwood held nearly $800,000 on deposit with a bank. His account had been frozen by the bank on the basis that Mr Erwood lacked the capacity to give the bank authority for the account.  The bank had formed this view on information provided to them by Mr Erwood.

The majority expressly noted that, had they not felt bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation, they would have agreed with the minority and required the investor to pay back not just the fictional profits, but also the profits of his capital investment.

We look at the reverberations last year from Fences & Kerbs and speculate on their continuing effect this year.

Case volume

The Reserve Bank has published a consultation paper on insurance solvency standards: the quality of capital and regulatory treatment of financial reinsurance. The paper outlines the attributes the Reserve Bank expects to see in regulatory capital instruments, such as permanence and the ability to absorb losses, and proposes consequential clarifications to the solvency standards to reflect these expectations.

The Court of Appeal has reversed the High Court’s decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant on a PPSA issue it describes as being of “practical significance”.