On 1 January 2021, the German Act on Stabilization and Restructuring Framework for Business (StaRUG) came in to force as part of the German Act on Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG). It contains several new pre-insolvency restructuring procedures, including a new preventive restructuring plan and corresponding protection of minority creditors.
What is the aim of the new preventive restructuring plan?
The Further Development Act on Restructuring and Insolvency Law (Sanierungsrechtsfortentwicklungsgesetz, or SanInsFoG2) came into force at the beginning of 2021, marking the final implementation of Germany's latest insolvency law innovations.
Here, we outline how the original, more extensive plans and draft laws from autumn 2020 compare with what was ultimately implemented.
Which provisions weren't implemented?
The SanInsFoG introduces the possibility of early risk identification and preventive restructuring before the stage of insolvency maturity.
In Germany, the duty to file for insolvency if there is illiquidity (Zahlungsunfähigkeit) and/or over-indebtedness (Überschuldung) was suspended under certain circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of September 2020.
The German Federal Government has passed a limited extension of the suspension period regarding over-indebtedness. We summarise the new legislation and outline the key takeaway for your business below.
What does the new legislation say?
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
Regulations
On 21 April 2018, new rules regarding the handling of "group" insolvency proceedings of companies in Germany became effective.
The regulations aimed at better coordination between separate insolvency proceedings, which must be implemented for every company within a group under German insolvency rulings. Prior to the regulations becoming effective, coordination was quite difficult, due to the separate responsibilities of different courts and insolvency administrators.
Amendments to the German Insolvency Act
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.