The COVID-19 pandemic is also keeping legislators on their toes, who are continuing to try to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the economy. The focus was initially on the temporary suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency by the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG). Following on from this, with the Act on the Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG), which came into force on 1 January 2021, the legislator has further modified obligations of conduct and, correspondingly, the liability of managing directors in the crisis of the company.

Mit rechtskräftig gewordenem Urteil vom 06.03.2019 (Az. 5 O 234/17) hat das Landgericht Wiesbaden entschieden, dass es dem Insolvenzverwalter und allen versicherten Personen verwehrt ist, Versicherungsschutz für Inanspruchnahmen zu verlangen, die einer Versicherungsperiode zuzuordnen sind, für die der Insolvenzverwalter die Nichterfüllung des D&O-Versicherungsvertrags gewählt hat.

In a final ruling dated 6 March 2019 (Case ref.: 5 O 234/17), the Regional Court of Wiesbaden decided that the insolvency administrator and all insured persons are not entitled to claim insurance coverage for claims attributable to an insurance period for which the insolvency administrator has chosen not to fulfi l the D&O insurance contract.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2011)