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?
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: