The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) has ruled on 18 May 2021 (docket number 3 AZR 317/20) that in the case of the PSV’s assertion of claims against the insolvency administrator of an insolvent company, it is not the balance sheet interest rate used for the calculation of the pension provisions that is applicable, but the standard statutory interest rate according to section 246 German Civil Code (BGB). Only this interest rate is decisive for the calculation of the amount of claims.

Facts / Background:

By judgment of 26 January 2021 (docket number: 3 AZR 878/16, 3 AZR 878/17) the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) has ruled that the acquirer of an insolvent company is only liable for vested entitlements and claims to occupational pension that had been earned after the opening of insolvency proceedings. He is not liable for the pension based on periods before, even if the German Insolvency Protection Fund (PSV) does not fully cover this part of the pension.

Facts / Background:

The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.

The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.

In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.

Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.

What is set off?

Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.

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

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

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.