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

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

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.

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).

It is no secret anymore that the MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) is coming. But why is this important for insolvency practitioners and clients? This update aims to give an answer to this question and to provide an outlook on how the German legislator plans to implement these principles.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has delivered its report following an inquiry into the “effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy”.

A company must apply for insolvency in Germany if it is either illiquid and/or over-indebted. Illiquidity must be confirmed where the debtor is not capable of meeting at least 90 % of all claims with its liquid assets within 3 weeks (section 17 of the German Insolvency Code).

Real estate assets – effect on liquidity

The Court of Appeal in Braunschweig has recently considered whether a debtor was insolvent due to illiquidity where it owned extensive real estate assets.

Background

Several recent insolvencies of popular crypto fin-techs have shaken the crypto markets, eroding investors’ trust in digital assets in general and their future reliability.

The European Union's (EU) response is to implement new and clarify existing safeguards for investors to protect their property in the event of an insolvency. In this context, the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR) is to be implemented throughout the EU.

Legislative changes

In the much-anticipated decision of Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch (HCA)), the High Court of Australia (the HCA) has now confirmed that the peak indebtedness rule may not be used when assessing the quantum of an unfair preference claim arising from a continuing business relationship.