It is not uncommon for contractors, in several industry sectors, to contract with a special purpose vehicle (SPV), whose day-to-day management is effectively controlled by a parent company, and the SPV has with little to no assets beyond cash flow provided by its parent. In this article we look at what a claimant could do outside of the traditional insolvency process in circumstances where the SPV goes into a form of external administration such as administration or liquidation and there are no assets available to the external administrators.
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
In the recent decision of Re PBS Building (Qld) Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 108, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered for the first time the operation of the State’s new project and retention trust account regime in the context of an insolvency. The decision provides useful guidance to insolvency practitioners and subcontractors as to their rights in relation to trust accounts established by an insolvent head contractor.
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
On 27 February 2024, the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by CB&I UK Limited (CB&I), part of the global McDermott construction and engineering group (the Group). This is the first English restructuring plan to be approved after the Court of Appeal judgment in Adler (see our Alert) and follows the guidance in that case.
Background
On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's sanction of Adler Group's (Adler) restructuring plan (the Plan) (see our alert). This much anticipated judgment provides clarity on the court's discretion to sanction a plan where there are dissenting classes of creditors.
Background
The Plan envisaged:
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.
The Court of Appeal has recently referred to established case law that the court will only interfere with the act of an officeholder “if he has done something so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.
While the judge in the lower court had not made any error of law, on the facts there were identifiable flaws in the judge's reasoning that the trustees' decision not to join in the proceedings was perverse.
The judge had failed to recognise that:
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).