The German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection is preparing new legislation suspending the obligation to file for insolvency in order to protect companies that encounter financial difficulties due to the coronavirus crisis (see here).
The validity of an assignment of receivables cross-border depends on the law that applies to the assignment.
What might amount to a valid assignment in one jurisdiction, does not mean, that it is valid in another and where there are competing claims to the receivables and competing jurisdictions, the question of which law applies and therefore whether there has been a valid assignment significantly affects the ability of the assignee to rely on the assignment.
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.
Under German law, there are strict legal obligations for the managing directors of an insolvent company to file for insolvency. Failure to comply exposes a managing director to civil and criminal liability. It is therefore important for managing directors to know how to test whether their company is insolvent. One of the legal reasons for insolvency is illiquidity and the second senate of the German Federal Civil Court (“BGH”) has, in a decision dated 19 December 2017 (II ZR 88/16), clarified a question regarding the illiquidity test.
A recent ruling of the German Federal Civil Court (Bundesgerichtshof (“BGH”)) is a reminder of the risks which shareholders of a German company can face in an insolvency of their German subsidiary.
German insolvency laws are very strict. The management of an insolvent company is under strict obligations to file for insolvency, and failure to comply with such obligation may result in civil and criminal liability. Other stakeholders, like financing banks or suppliers, who are dealing with a distressed company, require documentation that their contract partner can be restructured, in order to avoid potential liability and claw back risk in case of a future insolvency.
In the context of German restructuring, bridge loans (Überbrückungskredite) are loans that are granted to financially distressed companies until a restructuring plan is formulated in order to avoid the company’s insolvency. In most cases, such loans are granted for a limited timeframe. After the restructuring plan has been finalized, renegotiations are usually required, in particular between the company, the lender and the company’s other creditors.
Air Berlin, one of Europe’s largest airlines, filed for insolvency on 15 August 2017. The airline, which is Germany’s second-largest carrier after Lufthansa, filed following the decision by Etihad Airways to pull financial support. Etihad owns 29% of Air Berlin and had been pumping money into the struggling airline for the past 6 years.
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).
While the number of corporate insolvencies in Germany has declined over the last couple of years, the general market perception is that the number of insolvencies may increase again in 2017. Also, as more larger companies are facing distressed situations, the overall value of distressed debt is therefore expected to rise as well.
The legal framework for restructuring & insolvency in Germany will also change in 2017, not only based on domestic legislation, but also because of developments on the EU level.