(BVerfG, Beschluss vom 12.01.2016, Az. 1 BvR 3102/13)

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat sich per Beschluss vom 12. Januar 2016 zu der Frage geäußert, ob der Ausschluss juristischer Personen von der Bestellung als Insolvenzverwalter verfassungsgemäß ist oder nicht. Anlass war die Verfassungsbeschwer- de einer auf Insolvenzverwaltung spezialisierten Gesellschaft von Rechtsanwälten, welche zuvor die Aufnahme auf die Vorauswahlliste für Insolvenzverwalter eines Amtsgerichts vergeblich vor den Zivilgerichten zu erstreiten versucht hatte.

(Federal Constitutional Court, judgment dated 12 January 2016, case ref. 1 BvR 3102/13)

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has now ruled on whether the exclusion of legal entities from being appointed as insolvency administrator is constitutional or  not in its judgment dated 12 January 2016. The ruling was triggered by a constitutional complaint from a firm of lawyers specialising in insolvency administration, which had previously argued in vain before the civil courts for inclusion by a local court on its pre-selected list of insolvency administrators.

The economically significant investment activity by insurance companies is subject to the regulatory requirements of the German Insurance Supervision Act (Versiche­ rungsaufsichtsgesetz – VAG). With regard to the provisions of the European Solvency II Directive, changes to the requirements for capital investments of insurance companies have resulted from the new VAG which came into effect as of 01 January 2016 (VAG new). This gives us cause to take a look at the most important changes.

A.  Former legal situation

Mit seinem Urteil vom 10. Dezember 2015, Az. C-594 / 14, hat der EuGH entschieden, dass die Haftung eines Geschäftsführers für verbotene Aus- zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife nach §64 GmbHG eine insolvenzrechtliche Regelung darstellt und deshalb dem Anwendungsbereich der EuInsVO unterliegt.

In its ruling dated 10 December 2015, case ref. C-594 / 14, the ECJ decided that the liability of a managing director for prohibited payments following insolvency under section 64 of the GmbHG is a provision covered by insolvency law and therefore falls within the scope of application of the EU Insolvency Regulation.

The Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy trustee to compel return of a payment made to a creditor within 90 days before a bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(4)(A). The justification for compelling the return of preference payments is to level the playing field among creditors by not rewarding those who, perhaps, pressed the debtor the hardest on the eve of bankruptcy.

On May 16, 2016 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the meaning of “actual fraud” under the Bankruptcy Code. Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz represents a win for creditors by making it easier to show that a debtor committed fraud. A showing of a more general fraud, as opposed to a specific false representation by the debtor, will suffice to prevent certain debts from being discharged in bankruptcy.

Background

Equitable subordination in bankruptcy can be a powerful tool, providing a court with considerable latitude to set things right insofar as the estates of the penniless and the rights of their creditors are concerned.

In a judgment dated 26 / 03 / 2015, ref. no. IX ZR 302 / 13, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a provisional insolvency administrator is personally liable for monies paid into the escrow account in the event of claims of unjust enrichment being made due to the payments having no proper basis in law.

The ruling related to the following situation:

Mit Urteil vom 26. März 2015, AZ IX ZR 302 / 13, entschied der BGH, dass ein vorläufiger Insolvenzver- walter für Zahlungen auf das Voll- rechtstreuhandkonto persönlich haf- tet, wenn Bereicherungsansprüche wegen rechtsgrundloser Zahlungen geltend gemacht werden.

Dieser Entscheidung lag folgender Sachverhalt zu Grunde: