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).
New EU Regulation on Cross-Border Preservation of Accounts Potentially Useful Tool to Secure Assets in EU Member States
Um die Insolvenzmasse zu erhöhen, ermöglicht das Insolvenzanfechtungsrecht dem Insolvenzverwalter, unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen auf Werte zuzugreifen, derer sich der Schuldner vor der Stellung des Antrags auf Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens zu Lasten einzelner oder aller Gläubiger entäußert hat. The insolvency challenge rights give the insolvency administrator, under certain prerequisites, access to assets which the debtor disposed of to the detriment of the creditors prior to the filing for insolvency, thus increasing the insolvency estate.
I. Executive Summary
Der Bundestag hat Ende Februar 2017 eine Reform des Anfechtungsrechts verabschiedet. Die Reform bringt substantielle Änderungen des Insolvenzanfechtungsrechts, von denen in erster Linie Lieferanten und Dienstleister profitieren dürften, die sich Ansprüchen eines Insolvenzverwalters in der Insolvenz ihres Kunden ausgesetzt sehen. Die neuen Regeln sind am 5. April 2017 in Kraft getreten und gelten für alle Insolvenzverfahren, die ab diesem Datum eröffnet werden.
1. Hintergrund der Anfechtungsreform
A recent decision by the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has caused significant concerns in the restructuring community because it will severely complicate future restructurings in Germany or even make them impossible overall. In its decision dated 28 November 2016 (GrS 1/15, published on 8 February 2017) the court held that the so- called restructuring decree (circular on taxation of restructuring profits / Sanierungserlass) dated 27 March 2003 (IV A 6 S 2140 8/03, BStBl. I 2003, 240, amended by circular letter dated 22 December 2009 (IV C 9 S 4140/07/10001-01, BStBl.
The majority of the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision (see Buddle Findlay's summary here) that the liquidators of Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) can recover the fictitious profits obtained by Mr McIntosh ($454,047), but not his initial investment ($500,000).
For the first time in New Zealand, the High Court has considered whether a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 can release guarantors of a company's debts. Silverfern proposed a Part 14 compromise to its creditors and, as part of that compromise, the guarantees given by Silverfern's directors and shareholders, Mr and Mrs O'Connor, of Silverfern's debts, would be unconditionally released. The compromise was approved by the required majority but opposed by the plaintiffs.
In Havenleigh Global Services Ltd and FM Custodians Ltd v Henderson, relating to the bankruptcy of David Henderson, the Official Assignee had issued a notice under section 171 of the Insolvency Act to Xero for the provision of company records. Associate Judge Osborne prohibited publication of a ruling about the lawfulness of the notice pending the public examination of Mr Henderson and judgment. The Official Assignee applied for directions allowing publication because the prohibition prevented Xero from commenting on media articles about how it responded to the not
The Supreme Court has ruled that some family trust structures will be ineffective in protecting assets from claims by former partners and, potentially, other creditors.
The decision in Clayton v Clayton has implications for everyone who establishes trusts to manage relationship property, estate planning and insolvency risk.
The facts