As we reported in a previous blog the German legislator in November 2022 introduced the Law on the Temporary Adaption of Restructuring and Insolvency Law Provisions to Mitigate the Consequences of the Crisis (SanInsKG).
The Law on the Temporary Adaption of Restructuring and Insolvency Law Provisions to Mitigate the Consequences of the Crisis (SanInsKG) was published in the German Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger) today (8 November 2022) and will become effective in German law tomorrow (9 November 2022), following a very quick legislative process.
Purpose of the SanInsKG
SanInsKG is intended to address the difficulty of companies assessing their solvency in the current economic climate.
After its publication in the German Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger) on 29 December 2020, the Law for the Further Development of the Restructuring and Insolvency Laws (SanInsFoG) came into force in Germany on 1 January 2021. The major part of this new law, the Law on the Stabilisation and Restructuring Framework for Enterprises (StaRUG), introduces a new framework for restructurings outside of formal insolvency proceedings, implementing EU Directive 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks.
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following:
The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.
The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.