Das Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Düsseldorf hat mit einem aktuellen Urteil (27.07.2023 – 12 U 59/22) seine eigene Rechtsprechung bestätigt, nach der die regulären Anforderungskriterien an die Überschuldungsprüfung bei Start-ups nicht uneingeschränkt Anwendung finden können.

Hintergrund – Kriterien der Überschuldungsprüfung

In a ruling issued on 3 March 2022 (IX ZR 78/20) the German Federal Court (BGH) has again raised the requirements for proving that a debtor, when making a payment, intended to disadvantage their creditors.

Background

Under German insolvency law, a company is over-indebted when its existing assets do not fully cover its debts and there is no positive going concern prognosis. A positive going concern prognosis is assumed if the company has sufficient liquid funds available for a certain period to satisfy all liabilities at maturity and its profitability will be restored in accordance with a business plan.

Recent court decisions and legislative clarification

Over-indebtedness remains a ground for insolvency

The German Act on the Stabilisation and Restructuring Framework for Business (StaRUG) came into force on 1 January 2021, incorporating the EU Restructuring Directive into German law. It provides the first pre-insolvency restructuring framework for the reorganisation of companies facing "imminent illiquidity" and the possibility of involving dissenting creditors. The restructuring plan – which is very similar to the English Scheme of Arrangement and the German insolvency plan – is the central instrument.

Section 1 StaRUG

Where the law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil, insolvency and criminal proceedings (COVInsAG) is concerned, the German Parliament has introduced rules regarding the suspension of a managing director’s obligation to file for insolvency. It has also issued important statements regarding the liability of managing directors and the legal position of new loans, especially shareholder loans.

In the event that the obligation to file for insolvency is suspended:

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

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.