The European Council Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the Regulation) was adopted in May 2000 and came into force on 31 May 2002 in order to establish a European framework for cross-border insolvency proceedings.

The Regulation regulates: the jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings; recognition and enforcement of judgments for the opening of insolvency proceedings; the laws applicable to insolvency proceedings and their scope of applicability; and cooperation in a cross-border insolvency context.

A key objective of the current German coalition government is the reform of the clawback provisions in the German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung - InsO). To address this, the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection recently published a draft bill for discussion.

The German government is expected to remain in office until 2017, making it highly likely that this reform will become law, in the course of 2015-2016.

Background and objective of the reform

Restructurings are all about alternatives. It is one thing for a creditor to hold an instrument that entitles it to payment of $X on Y date. But if the debtor does not have the cash to satisfy the obligation when due, some type of restructuring must occur.

As the name suggests, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 (Model Law) seeks to address complexities caused where insolvencies cross borders, while leaving substantive insolvency laws of each country largely unaltered. However, as jurisdictions continue to adopt and interpret the Model Law, inconsistencies in its application are coming to light.

Impending major reform of German insolvency clawback regime 

Parties to an appeal who condition a settlement on the vacating of the lower court’s judgment “may still [have] an appropriate remedy,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on July 12, 2016. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App LEXIS 12813, *15 (11th Cir. July 12, 2016). Reversing the district court’s “narrow” refusal to vacate its judgment after the parties had settled, the Eleventh Circuit found that “exceptional circumstances” warranted the vacatur. Id., at *3, *14.

An insolvent corporate subsidiary’s payment of its parent’s contractual obligations was not a fraudulent transfer when “the [subsidiary] Debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for [its cash] transfers,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Sept. 4, 2015. In re PSN USA, Inc., 2015 WL 5167803, at *7 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015) (per curiam).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on Feb. 21, 2014, affirmed the dismissal of a bankruptcy trustee’s fraudulent transfer complaint against a “warehouse” lender who had been paid by a distressed home mortgage originator several months prior to the originator’s bankruptcy. Gold v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3279 (4th Cir. Feb. 21, 2014) (2-1). Affirming the lower courts, the Fourth Circuit held that “the bank accepted the payments” from its borrower “in good faith.” Id., at *2.

Chapter 11 creditors' committees and debtors continue to challenge lenders' prepayment premiums, commitment fees and post-bankruptcy interest claims in reorganization cases. Nevertheless, courts regularly reject these challenges in well-reasoned decisions. This Alert focuses on two of these recent decisions:In re Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 2017952 (9th Cir.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Feb. 7, 2011, held that senior creditors could not “gift” part of their reorganization plan recovery to existing shareholders of the debtor.In re DBSD N. Am., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 350480 (2d Cir. Feb. 7, 2011) (2-1) (Lynch, J.) (explainingIn re DBSD N. Am., Inc., 627 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary opinion)). Its extensive 62-page opinion explained the court’s previous two-page summary ruling of Dec.