Etihad, die staatliche Fluggesellschaft der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate, war Hauptaktionärin der Air Berlin. Etihad stellte Air Berlin seit 2011 Liquidität zur Verfügung. Als sie die finanzielle Unterstützung im August 2017 beendete, stellte Air Berlin wenige Tage später beim Amtsgericht Charlottenburg einen Antrag auf Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens. Die rechtlichen Folgen dieser Insolvenz sind immer noch nicht ganz abgearbeitet. Ein wirtschaftlich bedeutender Aspekt beschäftigte zuletzt die deutschen und englischen Gerichte.
Sachverhalt
As we mentioned before, the Greek debt crisis has reached the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof).
On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.
The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.
Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited
On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited1, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.
Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others
Insolvency professionals will welcome the High Court's decision in Blue Monkey Gaming Limited v Hudson & Others [2014] which is clear authority that the onus is upon retention of title claimants, not administrators, to locate and identify retention of title goods. The court made clear that to require the administrator to identify retention of title goods would be "totally unrealistic and practically unworkable."