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:

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.