The German Federal Court of Justice (the Federal Court) has considered whether a so-called "weak" preliminary insolvency administrator, entrusted to continue business operations with the management during the preliminary proceeding, may take actions in the interest of these operations, where it is unclear whether the debtor has discontinued the business.
Background
Borrower beware: in times of distress, your credit documents may give your secured lenders an opportunity to “flip” control of your board
Distress happens, even at companies that once appeared financially solid. When it does, the company, its board (which may be controlled by a sponsor in a public or private equity scenario), and its lenders often enter into restructuring discussions in search of a consensual path forward, typically under the terms of a forbearance agreement.
According to the German Federal Court of Justice (the Court), a “related party” (nahestehende Person) within the meaning of German insolvency law includes in the case of a legal entity, an indirect shareholder, provided that it holds more than 25% of the shares. Here, the Court will assume that the legal entity has advance knowledge of the financial situation of its subsidiary.
Background
In a recent case before the Federal Court of Justice, an insolvency administrator was found to have neglected his duties of investigation in a particularly serious and reproachable manner.
Decision
The insolvency administrator had contested the offsetting of an investment subsidy by the creditor bank to balance the debtor’s accounts.
The focus of the decision was whether the insolvency administrator had made the contestation claim within the statutory limitation period. In Germany, this is usually three years and starts:
Where a creditor believes that a debtor is insolvent, any “third-party application” that it makes for the insolvency of the debtor must be well substantiated.
Decision
The District Court of Hamburg recently considered an application for insolvency on grounds of illiquidity due to default in social security contributions.
A landmark decision of the German Federal Court (13 June 2006 – IX ZB 238/05) held that the illiquidity of a company could be assumed where it was in default for more than six months of social security contributions.
Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat am 29. Juni 2023 entschieden, dass ein Rechtsanwalt wegen Beratungsfehlern zu Zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife gegenüber dem Geschäftsführer haften kann, auch wenn er das Unternehmen und nicht die/den Geschäftsführer persönlich berät (IX ZR 56/22, ZInsO 2023, 1642).
It is no secret anymore that the MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) is coming. But why is this important for insolvency practitioners and clients? This update aims to give an answer to this question and to provide an outlook on how the German legislator plans to implement these principles.
A company must apply for insolvency in Germany if it is either illiquid and/or over-indebted. Illiquidity must be confirmed where the debtor is not capable of meeting at least 90 % of all claims with its liquid assets within 3 weeks (section 17 of the German Insolvency Code).
Real estate assets – effect on liquidity
The Court of Appeal in Braunschweig has recently considered whether a debtor was insolvent due to illiquidity where it owned extensive real estate assets.
简介
最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港终审法院澄清，如果受争议的呈请债务所涉及的协议载有专属司法管辖权条款（「专属条款」），法院应如何处理清盘及破产呈请。
案情
上诉人于2017年与CP Global Inc（「该公司」）及答辩人订立了一份信贷及担保协议（「信贷协议」）。据此，上诉人向该公司提供定期贷款，答辩人就该公司结欠上诉人的所有款项提供个人担保。信贷协议载有专属条款，就该协议所产生或与之有关的所有法律程序赋予纽约法院专属司法管辖权。
于2020年，上诉人认为发生了信贷协议所指的违约事件，故要求答辩人支付信贷协议项下的未偿还本金及利息。答辩人未有按上诉人的要求还款，因此上诉人在香港针对答辩人展开破产法律程序。另一方面，答辩人在纽约提起诉讼，请求法院求宣告并无发生信贷协议下的违约事件。
答辩人反对在香港提出破产呈请的主要理由之一，是专属条款规定上诉人须首先在纽约法院就双方争议进行诉讼，然后才可在香港展开破产程序。
Introduction
In the latest judgment handed down by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified the approach to winding up and bankruptcy petitions where the agreement from which the disputed petition debt arose contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (“EJC”).
Facts