Background

Under German law, when a company becomes insolvent or over-indebted, its directors are obliged to file for insolvency. If they fail to fulfil this duty, according to s 64 German limited liability company Act (GmbHG) from this point in time onwards, they have to compensate the company for those payments which (objectively) would not have been made by a prudent businessman. Such imprudence is presumed.

In practice, s 64 is one of the most powerful tools available to insolvency administrators claiming against directors.

The reform of the European insolvency regulation (EIR) comes into force in mid-2017. Inter alia, it will alter the rules on which jurisdiction is competent to open insolvency procedures.

Legal Background

If a debtor needs to file for insolvency, there are two main ways of manipulating the existing legal competence rules:

Experienced insolvency practitioners in Hong Kong are all familiar with Hong Kong Court of Appeal's decision of 1 March 2006 in the liquidation of Legend International Resorts Limited1.

Summary

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 10 September 2015, IX ZR 215/13) deals with the question whether the recipient of a payment may be subject to a clawback claim if he returned the received amount to the debtor before the opening of insolvency proceedings.

Background

Introduction

The German FCJ (IX ZR 143/13, 17 December 2015) relates to the requirements and effects of a settlement between an insolvency administrator and the personally liable partners of an insolvent partnership.

The Honourable Mr Justice Harris, the incumbent Companies Judge, has continued the recent development of cross-border assistance in insolvency matters. An example is his Lordship's decision in Re Centaur Litigation SPC (In Liquidation)(HCMP 3389/2015, 10 March 2016), which relates to an application by the liquidators of three companies incorporated and being wound up in the Cayman Islands.

Introduction

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 9 June 2016, IX ZR 314/14) relates to the interface between the German master agreement for financial derivative transactions (GMA) and sec. 104 of the German Insolvency Statute (InsO).

Background

A key factor contributing to the vitality and development of the common law is that judges can have the benefit of authorities from other jurisdictions with a comparable legal framework. This has proved and will be increasingly important in areas such as cross-border insolvency, where modified universalism has been thecatchword in recent years.

Background

In Germany, corporate entities are not allowed to act as insolvency administrators (sec 56 I 1 Insolvency Code). Instead, the insolvency court selects and appoints experienced individuals.

Legal background

Under German criminal law, it is illegal for the management not to fulfil tax obligations when due, whereas under German insolvency law a company must treat all creditors equally when the company is illiquid. By paying taxes after the company becomes illiquid, the management would violate this obligation and prefer the state.