A recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has extended the liability of legal advisors in crisis situations.

Background

Under German law, a lawyer may be liable not only to his client, but also to a third party, if the third party has a special interest in the lawyer's performance. The Bundesgerichtshof has clarified that managing directors and even shadow directors may have such a special interest and may claim damages from their company’s legal advisor for breach of duty (Pflichtverletzung).

Under German law, company directors have a statutory duty to file for insolvency once the company has become insolvent or over-indebted. Company directors can be held personally liable for any payments they make after that point of time unless they prove that they exercised reasonable care, skill and diligence. After the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) clarified that standard terms and conditions of German D&O insurance contracts cover this directors’ liability, many D&O insurers have tried to find new ways to avoid their coverage.

In a ruling issued on 3 March 2022 (IX ZR 78/20) the German Federal Court (BGH) has again raised the requirements for proving that a debtor, when making a payment, intended to disadvantage their creditors.

Background

In a recent judgment on directors’ liability, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf) held that startup companies are not deemed to be overindebted if they are receiving adequate finance from their shareholders or third parties.

Background

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

In a recent judgment on directors’ liability (Bundesgerichtshof, 18 November 2020, IV ZR 217/19), the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the scope of D&O insurance coverage, holding that company directors are entitled to its protection.

Background

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) recently decided that an insolvency administrator must not rely on the business judgment rule laid down in section 93(1) of the German Companies Act. Section 93(1) provides that a director is not liable to the company if the director reasonably believes that he is well-informed and is acting in the best interests of the company.