This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
JUNE 2012


An Interview With...


41


from one of the leading law firms in Germany, Leonhardt Rechtsanwälte.


becomes centrally important because right after the filing it can suggest who the administrator shall be. It can also block DIP- proceedings if they are unpopular with the creditors. Its formation is required if the turnover of the debtor is €9.68 million or larger, its balance sheet sum is €4.84 million or larger and average employment was 50 employees or more (two out of three are sufficient).


If these


requirements are not met its formation is not required but suggested. The court must follow a unanimous recommendation unless the appointment would have detrimental effects for the insolvency estate. It has to justify a divergent choice by a written and reasoned decision. Thus the creditors now have substantial influence over the most important decision in insolvency cases, the appointment of the administrator.


The aim of the new law is to both increase the influence of the creditors and to create new possibilities for the


reasonable debtor


decision. If the enterprise is not yet illiquid – which, however, has to be determined by an independent expert opinion – proceedings are speeded up to be finished and the restructuring completed after three months.


Finally, significantly


the ESUG reduces


individual creditors’ rights to appeal against an insolvency plan. Appeals require that the creditor voted against the plan and proves that the plan causes him a significant economic disadvantage. Even then the appeal will not delay the implementation of the


plan, provided that the plan provides for a specific sum used as damages should the appeal succeed.


How will it affect the German economy?


In insolvency plan proceedings creditors are now given the option of swapping their debt for equity if they so wish. For this the ESUG abolishes the strict separation of insolvency and companies law, permitting any measure possible under companies law to be made through majority vote in a plan and supplanting many formalities which companies law normally requires.


However, debtors are also given additional rights. If a debtor files with the intent to stay in possession this can be rejected by the court only under much more narrow preconditions than before. No administrator is then appointed but instead there is only some supervision of the debtor who remains in control of his business, and if debtor and creditors’ committee agree on the person of the supervisor the court is bound by this


The amendments make German insolvency law much more competitive and creditor-friendly while encouraging management to file early when a restructuring is needed. Both measures combined should lead to more professional and speedier restructurings which would reduce losses for creditors and protect the remaining value in the businesses concerned.


What are German law firms doing to prepare for the new rules?


contact details


I expect that the major firms which do restructuring work will use the new self- administration and insolvency plan procedures quite extensively. Administrators will have to focus more on the interests of


c.koehler-ma@leonhardt-rechtsanwaelte.de berlin@leonhardt-rechtsanwaelte.de


creditors who in important cases can now call the shots.


could the reforms have gone further? If so, how?


Quite remarkably, the German legislature has listened to the criticism of German and international creditors alike and has made changes which must be called revolutionary, moving the German insolvency system away from court- determined liquidation to business-oriented restructuring. In the face of this we should not pick bones. Of course there are some details which will have to be ironed out in practice, and the required unanimity in the creditors’ committee is a bit too cautious when a majority vote might have been more appropriate. Still as it stands the new law represents a major achievement which is to be greeted and used. LM


www.lawyer-monthly.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100