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

Was ist zu beachten?

Die Pandemie trifft die Wirtschaft mit voller Wucht und ein Ende ist weiterhin nicht absehbar. Um eine ungeordnete Insolvenzwelle zu vermeiden, hat der Gesetzgeber schnell reagiert und mit dem am 27. März 2020 in Kraft getretenen COVID-19-Insolvenz-Aussetzungsgesetz (COVInsAG) die Insolvenzantragspflicht zunächst bis zum 30. September 2020 suspendiert. Per Verordnung kann die Suspendierung bis zum 31. März 2021 verlängert werden.

Die Hotelindustrie gehört zu den Branchen, die von der Corona-Krise am schwersten getroffen werden. Mitunter geht es um das schlichte Überleben der betroffenen Unternehmen. Wir möchten Ihnen in einem interdisziplinären Webinar einige der drängendsten Fragen beantworten, die Ihnen helfen sollen, durch diese herausfordernde Zeit durchzukommen.

Folgende Themen stehen im Fokus des Webinars:

The German Federal Court of Justice has tightened its grip on company directors again. In a recent judgment on directors’ liability in insolvency situations, the Court clarified the scope of sections 60- 61 of the German Insolvency Act.

In a recent judgment, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) took the opportunity to clarify its position on sec. 17(2) German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung, InsO). According to sec. 17(2) InsO a debtor is deemed insolvent if he is unable to pay his debts as they fall due (Zahlungsunfähigkeit).

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer