The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has denied certiorari to petitioners alleging that Aaroma Holdings LLC is liable for personal injury claims stemming from the use of diacetyl by Emoral Inc., which declared bankruptcy in 2011 after Aaroma bought its assets in 2010. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings LLC, No. 14-71 (U.S., cert. denied November 3, 2014). The petitioners had argued that freeing Aaroma from liability would create a loophole for companies looking to avoid tort liability by encouraging them to sell assets before filing for bankruptcy.

In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014).

A Florida-based import-export company has filed for Chapter 7 protection in bankruptcy court, listing more than $204 million in liabilities from litigation over its role in the import from China of powdered milk contaminated with melamine. In re Exim Brickell, LLC, No. 13-28502 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., S.D. Fla., filed August 3, 2013). Exim Brickell, LLC declared $300 in office furniture as its only asset.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) continued with its extensive interpretation of the rules for contesting transactions under insolvency law in a judgment dated 21 February 2013 (BGH IX ZR 32/12). In the case before the court, direct shareholder A in company T sold a claim under a loan to B at below par value. Following assignment, T repaid the loan to B at the nominal amount plus interest. Insolvency proceedings were opened around two months later in relation to T’s assets. The BGH’s decision covers three aspects:

In a recent case decided by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2012 – IX ZR 169 / 11), an energy supplier had entered into a contract with a customer “which should also terminate without notice if the customer makes an application for insolvency or where preliminary insolvency proceedings are initiated or opened based on an application by a creditor”. When the customer was forced to declare insolvency, the energy supplier and the customer’s insolvency administrator entered into a new energy-supply contract at higher rates, subject to a review of the legal position.

Under the new liability standard set out in section 64 sentence 3 of the GmbHG, which was introduced by the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), the managing director of a company is liable for payments to shareholders which necessarily cause the insolvency of the company. The requirement for causality of the payment for insolvency and actual determination of insolvency were matters of dispute. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now established clarity on both points (judgment of 9 October 2012 II ZR 298 / 11).

Following the entry into force of the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), an atypical silent shareholder must still be treated as a subordinate insolvency creditor for the purposes of section 39(1) no. 5 of the Insolvency Act (InsO) in the event that the company becomes insolvent, assuming the status of the silent shareholder is similar to that of a shareholder in a GmbH (private limited company).

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).

A federal court in West Virginia has ruled that the U.S. government may proceed with a Clean Air Act (CAA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enforcement action, even though defendant and its subsidiaries have filed for bankruptcy. United States v. RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, No. 12-19 (N.D. W. Va. 7/9/12).

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed decisions of the bankruptcy court and a federal district court that the purchaser of a bankrupt company’s assets cannot recover the costs of environmental remediation from an escrow account established as part of the purchase agreement.In re Evans Indus. Inc., No. 10-30387 (5th Cir. 6/21/11) (unpublished).