Essentie                                                                                               

On February 24, 2016, the legal committee (Rechtsausschuss) of the German parliament (Bundestag) held a hearing on the proposed reform to considerably limit the clawback regime (Insolvenzanfechtung) in the German insolvency code (Insolvenzordnung – InsO). The general gist of hearing was that the current German governing party coalition is still determined to enact the reform, with some modifications as to the scope and protected parties still up for discussion.

Einleitung

Introduction

The liability regime under Section 64 sentence 1 GmbHG and Sections 92 para. 2, 93 para. 3 Nr. 6 AktG for payments made after the company’s insolvency imposes severe personal liability risk on the management of limited liability companies and stock corporations. This does not only apply to the management of German limited liability companies (“GmbH”) and stock corporations (“AG”) but also to companies incorporated under foreign law that have their centre of main interest in Germany, as the European Court of Justice has decided just recently.

Legal background

Under German criminal law, it is illegal for the management not to fulfil tax obligations when due, whereas under German insolvency law a company must treat all creditors equally when the company is illiquid. By paying taxes after the company becomes illiquid, the management would violate this obligation and prefer the state.

The German Government proposes amendments to the German insolvency Act (‘InsO’), which will limit the insolvency administrator’s rescission rights, especially his claims under s. 133 para 1 InsO.

Current Law

Overview

In November 2015, the German legislator passed the Resolution Mechanism Act (Abwicklungsmechanismusgesetz, AbwMechG). The law introduces, among other things, Section 46f (5) et seqq. of the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz, KWG), which requires that claims under certain unsecured debt instruments be subordinated to general senior unsecured obligations in an insolvency proceeding involving a German bank.

On March 3 2015 the Hamburg Local Court (67a IN 400/14) expressly contradicted the Bremen Regional Court's August 14 2011 decision (2 T 435/11) regarding whether vessels are protected from arrest during preliminary insolvency proceedings (for further details please see "Are vessels protected from arrest du

In a judgment dated 26 / 03 / 2015, ref. no. IX ZR 302 / 13, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a provisional insolvency administrator is personally liable for monies paid into the escrow account in the event of claims of unjust enrichment being made due to the payments having no proper basis in law.

The ruling related to the following situation: