Update: Arbitrator’s Nightmare: When Procedural Orders Backfire – Flex-n-Gate v. GEA

In November 2012 I posted on the Gea v. Flex-n-Gate decision of the Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) that treated procedural orders as Agreements between the parties and that had been upheld by the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). The piece was cross-posted at the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, were it sparked some debate. In the most recent issue of the German Arbitration Journal (Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren) Gerhard Wagner and Maximilian Bülau discuss the case in detail. Continue reading

Arbitrator’s Nightmare: When Procedural Orders Backfire – Flex-n-Gate v. GEA

It must be an arbitrator’s nightmare: Imagine a high-stake arbitration that goes on for years, the entire distance, including witness hearings and expert evidence, only for the final award to be set aside on procedural grounds. And this is exactly what the Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt did in a judgment in February 2011, which has now become full and final. For a detailed discussion the case, see my post at the Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

The German Bond Act, the Frankfurt Court of Appeals, Q-Cells and Pfleiderer: The Case for Legislative Reform

The Frankfurt Court of Appeal’s rulings on the German Bond Act in the Q-Cells and Pfleiderer matters has resulted in two high-profile insolvency filings. Must these cases lead to a change of legislation?  Frankfurt’s Institute for Law and Finance has organized a one-day conference dealing with the impact of the court’s decisions on the law and legal practice. The first presentation’s title sets the agenda: “Can the German Bond Act be Rescued? (“Ist das Schuldverschreibungsgesetz noch zu retten?”). The conference will be held on June 28, 2012.

Update: German Bond Act Not Applicable in Q-Cells and Pfleiderer Restructuring

Last week’s decision of the Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) in the Pfleiderer bond restructuring has now been published. The Court of Appeals did follow the reasoning of the District Court in the Q-Cells matter, on which I had reported in more detail in my previous post. Continue reading