The German Federal Court of Justice (the Federal Court) has considered whether a so-called "weak" preliminary insolvency administrator, entrusted to continue business operations with the management during the preliminary proceeding, may take actions in the interest of these operations, where it is unclear whether the debtor has discontinued the business.
Background
According to the German Federal Court of Justice (the Court), a “related party” (nahestehende Person) within the meaning of German insolvency law includes in the case of a legal entity, an indirect shareholder, provided that it holds more than 25% of the shares. Here, the Court will assume that the legal entity has advance knowledge of the financial situation of its subsidiary.
Background
In a recent case before the Federal Court of Justice, an insolvency administrator was found to have neglected his duties of investigation in a particularly serious and reproachable manner.
Decision
The insolvency administrator had contested the offsetting of an investment subsidy by the creditor bank to balance the debtor’s accounts.
The focus of the decision was whether the insolvency administrator had made the contestation claim within the statutory limitation period. In Germany, this is usually three years and starts:
Where a creditor believes that a debtor is insolvent, any “third-party application” that it makes for the insolvency of the debtor must be well substantiated.
Decision
The District Court of Hamburg recently considered an application for insolvency on grounds of illiquidity due to default in social security contributions.
A landmark decision of the German Federal Court (13 June 2006 – IX ZB 238/05) held that the illiquidity of a company could be assumed where it was in default for more than six months of social security contributions.
Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat am 29. Juni 2023 entschieden, dass ein Rechtsanwalt wegen Beratungsfehlern zu Zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife gegenüber dem Geschäftsführer haften kann, auch wenn er das Unternehmen und nicht die/den Geschäftsführer persönlich berät (IX ZR 56/22, ZInsO 2023, 1642).
It is no secret anymore that the MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) is coming. But why is this important for insolvency practitioners and clients? This update aims to give an answer to this question and to provide an outlook on how the German legislator plans to implement these principles.
A company must apply for insolvency in Germany if it is either illiquid and/or over-indebted. Illiquidity must be confirmed where the debtor is not capable of meeting at least 90 % of all claims with its liquid assets within 3 weeks (section 17 of the German Insolvency Code).
Real estate assets – effect on liquidity
The Court of Appeal in Braunschweig has recently considered whether a debtor was insolvent due to illiquidity where it owned extensive real estate assets.
Background
Several recent insolvencies of popular crypto fin-techs have shaken the crypto markets, eroding investors’ trust in digital assets in general and their future reliability.
The European Union's (EU) response is to implement new and clarify existing safeguards for investors to protect their property in the event of an insolvency. In this context, the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR) is to be implemented throughout the EU.
Legislative changes
Introduction
The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.
Background
簡介
英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。