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:

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.