Die weltweite Ausbreitung des Coronavirus sorgt für heftige Turbulenzen im Wirtschaftsleben. Gerät eine GmbH in finanzielle Schieflage, steht besonders die Geschäftsführung unter Druck. Sie kämpft um das wirtschaftliche Überleben der Gesellschaft. Gleichzeitig kommen verschiedene Szenarien für die Haftung des Geschäftsführers in Betracht, wenn dieser keine Krisenprävention durchgeführt hat oder in der Krise nicht die erforderliche Sorgfalt anwendet.

Haftung wegen unzureichender Krisenprävention

The coronavirus pandemic is sending shock waves through the business world. If a GmbH (German limited liability company) finds itself in financial distress, the management in particular will be under pressure and must fight for the survival of the business. At the same time, there are various scenarios in which managing directors could be held liable for not implementing crisis prevention measures or exercising the necessary diligence during the crisis.

Liability for inadequate crisis prevention

In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit examined whether circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear direct appeals of unauthorized bankruptcy court orders that have not been reviewed by a district court. This was an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit. The appellate court held that a bankruptcy court’s ruling in a non-core proceeding that has not been reviewed by the district court carries no adjudicative authority and is therefore not directly appealable to the circuit court.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, has reversed two district court opinions and refused to allow a company to use a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing as a means to reduce interest on its debt obligations. Specifically, the court held that filing for bankruptcy would not excuse a debtor from its obligation for a “make-whole” payment otherwise due to its lenders.

On May 4, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a bankruptcy settlement in the form of a tender offer did not violate the principles of the bankruptcy process. See opinion here.

On March 1, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on the seemingly simple question of what “actual fraud” means.  The Court’s decision will have a significant impact on the reach of the exception to discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A district court judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently vacated a bankruptcy court’s decision allowing rejection of an oil and gas lease under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The District Court held that a debtor’s oil and gas lease was a conveyance of an interest in real property and not an executory contract or unexpired lease that could be rejected in bankruptcy under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.