In a recent landmark cross border decision the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court clarified that general managers cannot rely on their Directors and Officers Liability Insurance cover (D&O) in the event of a claim for repayment under Germany's "wrongful trading" legislation. 

Providing cover for the directors and officers of a company or the company itself, D&O insurance provides reimbursement in the event the insured suffers loss as a result of legal action brought for alleged wrongful acts of the directors and officers.  

On 26 August the UK Government announced its intention to introduce radical reforms to insolvency law in the catchily named consultation paper "Insolvency and Corporate Governance – Government Response". Despite the 82 pages, the government kept their cards relatively close to their chest choosing not to reveal their big plans but with suggestions about the reforms ahead to "enable more companies not only to survive, but to thrive".

The Department for BEIS has recently published a consultation to the UK's insolvency and corporate governance landscape including significant proposals to extend the liability of directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries. 

This recent Court of Appeal decision has provided clarity on the justification for the rules against bringing claims for reflective loss and confirmed that both unsecured creditors and shareholders are similarly barred from bringing such claims.

Background

The Hong Kong Court have confirmed for the first time that a foreign voluntary liquidation is eligible for common law recognition and assistance in Hong Kong.

China Culture Media International Holdings Limited, incorporated in the BVI, was wound up on 9 May 2016. China Culture was the sole shareholder of Supreme Tycoon Limited, also incorporated in the BVI.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

In an urgent application, the Court of Appeal held that a CVA should be precluded from becoming effective where an unanticipated claim of €126.7m was submitted after the CVA was approved but before the statutory bar on new claims had lapsed.

The Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port And Terminal Private Ltd (formerly known as Fourcee Port and Terminal Private Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, [2018] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) on 13 July 2018 provided important clarification as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") out of the jurisdiction.

The Facts

On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.