In two recent judgments, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with the resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion of a land charge and the resistance to insolvency of the claim for restitution of higher or equal ranking land charges which has been assigned for security purposes. Abandoning its existing case law, the BGH answered the question of resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion from the register as per section 1179a of the German Civil Code in the affirmative in its judgment dated 27 April 2012 (BGH, judgment of 27.04.2012 – V ZR 270 / 10). According to this ruling, the claim of the land chargee holding an equal or subordinate ranking land charge for deletion of a prior ranking land charge from the land register can be enforced even when the land charge and the charged property are consolidated in the hands of one party only after the opening of insolvency proceedings over the assets of the land owner. In the second judgment dated 10 November 2011 (BGH, judgment of 10.11.2011 – IX ZR 142 / 10) the BGH specified the requirements for an insolvency-proof security assignment of the claim for restitution of a higher or equal ranking land charge. According to the court, the assignee attains a secure legal status in relation to the claim for restitution which is resistant to insolvency for the purposes of section 91 of the Insolvency Act (InsO) only once the claim secured by the prior or equal ranking land charge has been repaid in full and any re-establishment of the land charge can be ruled out. Consequently, if the land charge only secures a certain liability (narrow collateral purpose) and this liability has been repaid in full prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings, the legal position of the assignee of the claim to restitution is resistant to insolvency because in this scenario re-establishment of the land charge represents an amendment of the original security agreement which is not possible without the consent of the creditor with the lower priority. If, on the other hand, the land charge is based upon a wide collateral purpose (security also for future liabilities) then the land charge can be reestablished if the debtor takes out further loans. Consequently, the legal position of the assignee is not resistant to insolvency. Also, due to the prohibition on acquisition in section 91(1) of the Insolvency Act a right to separate settlement in favour of the assignee can no longer arise.