In a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) further outlined the requirements for the avoidance of a transaction under insolvency law on the grounds of wilful disadvantage to creditors pursuant to section 133 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO).

Background

Directors resign for many reasons. For example, there may be disagreements among stakeholders about the future course of the company, they may be concerned about the risks associated with financial difficulty/insolvency, or they may just wish to retire.

Background

Under German insolvency law, employees are generally protected from claw-back claims. The payment of wages is considered a "cash transaction" if the employer pays the salary within three months of the work being performed. A “cash transaction” can only be contested in limited circumstances. Where a third party pays the salary, the cash transaction privilege remains if it is not clear to the employee that a third party made the payment (s.142(2) and s.3 InsO).

A recent German Federal Court of Justice ruling shows that this protection has limits.

This is one of a series of articles we at Morton Fraser are producing to guide our clients through the wholesale change proposed in Scots law in relation to security over goods, intellectual property and shares, on the one hand, and invoice finance or the purchase of receivables, on the other. For a general introduction to what the Bill covers, see here.

The German court has published LG München I v. 13.07.2021 - 6 O 17571/20 – the first published ruling on COVInsAG. We unpack the key takeaways from the decision below.

Background

To mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic, the German government passed the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG) to temporarily suspend the obligation on directors to file for insolvency where the debtor's insolvency was due to the pandemic. The COVInsAG (Section 2(1) Nos.2 and 4) also suspends large parts of the rules on insolvency avoidance.

UK Government introduces a temporary increase to minimum debt level required for a winding up petition

Restrictions have been in place since the start of the pandemic to prevent creditors taking steps to wind up debtor companies. Those restrictions are due to expire on September 30, 2021. To lessen the risk of October seeing a mass rush by creditors seeking to wind up their debtors, the UK Government has introduced a further temporary measure in connection with liquidation petitions.

In this two part article we highlight for directors some of the main ways in which the general protection of limited liability does not apply or can be lost.

Part one of this article discusses those exceptions to the principle of limited liability that arise in insolvency or distress situations. Part two deals with the provisions that have more general applicability.

Breach of duties

Limited liability is one of the fundamental concepts in our understanding of company law. Even people who know very little about the working of limited companies may know that directors and shareholders are not liable for the debts of their companies. For the last 160 years, the protection of limited liability has been a key factor in economic growth and commercial activity as it has allowed entrepreneurs to speculate and take risks that they might not have been willing to do if the risk of personal liability overshadowed their decision-making.

One of the main differences in insolvency law between Scotland and England & Wales relates to the challengeable transactions regime under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In both jurisdictions, transactions that are entered into before a formal insolvency process begins can be attacked if they are detrimental to the creditors of the insolvent company. However, although both systems use similar language and address similar concerns, the law in the two jurisdictions is different, most notably with different time periods and defences to a challenge.

The pandemic has created a chaotic business environment in which it is has at times been practically impossible to make any definitive plans. Lockdown measures have changed regularly, legislation has been introduced and extended and the rules for conducting business (when it is even possible to trade) have varied across the UK and have at times been criticised by those most harshly effected as being arbitrary and unscientific. All of this has often happened at very short notice.