A recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has extended the liability of legal advisors in crisis situations.
Background
Under German law, a lawyer may be liable not only to his client, but also to a third party, if the third party has a special interest in the lawyer's performance. The Bundesgerichtshof has clarified that managing directors and even shadow directors may have such a special interest and may claim damages from their company’s legal advisor for breach of duty (Pflichtverletzung).
Austria implemented the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks more than two years ago, in July 2021. In a first ruling on the proceedings, the Vienna Higher Regional Court has reaffirmed the prerequisites for entering preventive restructuring and clarified the checks to be carried out by the courts at the opening of the proceedings.
Decision
The Court held that:
On 12 September 2023, the government published its long-awaited response to its consultation on the future of insolvency regulation.
The reforms will introduce:
Nuo Ji, Lingqi Wang, Jessica Li and Sylvia Zhang, Fangda Partners
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Hajime Ueno, Masaru Shibahara and Kotaro Fuji, Nishimura & Asahi
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
Heidi Chui, Stevenson, Wong & Co
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
In summary
Swee Siang Boey and Suchitra Kumar, RPC Premier Law
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
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.
A proposed amendment to the Insolvency Act, has been approved by the government and is currently under discussion in the Czech Parliament. It is expected to significantly alleviate the situation for debtors seeking debt relief. The previous government had intended to introduce similar changes; however, the legislative process was halted by the end of its term.
Current position
Currently, debtors can achieve debt relief only after 5 years of "good conduct", unless they:
In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.
Background
Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.