Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

On 20 July 2018, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled that standard D&O insurances do not cover restitution claims for payments which managing directors of a limited liability company make after the company becomes insolvent. Whereas it is possible to obtain coverage for restitution claims, many older policies do not provide for this. Directors are well advised to check the scope of their insurance coverage.

Background

1. Background of the claw-back reform

German insolvency law allows claw-back for actions made by the debtor during a period of up to 10 years prior to insolvency proceedings. Until the new rules entered into effect in April 2017, this long look-back period also applied to so-called coverage transactions, meaning payments to which the creditor was entitled under contract or law. The insolvency administrator only needed to prove that when making the payment the debtor willfully disadvantaged its other creditors, and the recipient of the payment was aware of this.

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures and amending Directive 2012/30/EU