The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) continued with its extensive interpretation of the rules for contesting transactions under insolvency law in a judgment dated 21 February 2013 (BGH IX ZR 32/12). In the case before the court, direct shareholder A in company T sold a claim under a loan to B at below par value. Following assignment, T repaid the loan to B at the nominal amount plus interest. Insolvency proceedings were opened around two months later in relation to T’s assets. The BGH’s decision covers three aspects:

A. Bill of the “Law on shielding credit institutions and financial groups against risks and planning their restructuring and winding-up”

In a recent case decided by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2012 – IX ZR 169 / 11), an energy supplier had entered into a contract with a customer “which should also terminate without notice if the customer makes an application for insolvency or where preliminary insolvency proceedings are initiated or opened based on an application by a creditor”. When the customer was forced to declare insolvency, the energy supplier and the customer’s insolvency administrator entered into a new energy-supply contract at higher rates, subject to a review of the legal position.

Under the new liability standard set out in section 64 sentence 3 of the GmbHG, which was introduced by the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), the managing director of a company is liable for payments to shareholders which necessarily cause the insolvency of the company. The requirement for causality of the payment for insolvency and actual determination of insolvency were matters of dispute. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now established clarity on both points (judgment of 9 October 2012 II ZR 298 / 11).

After almost four years of existence, the Belgian “Act on Continuity of Enterprises” has achieved great success for companies in financial difficulties that wish to shelter from creditors’ lawsuits in order to attempt a restructuring of their business. The Act enables distressed companies to use effective and flexible recovery procedures to continue their business activities and to avoid insolvency.

Depuis 2008, le groupe Dexia a bénéficié d’aides publiques qui ont été soumises à l’examen de la Commission et qui ont été autorisées par celle-ci en février 2010 sous la condition de la réalisation d’un plan de restructuration. Compte tenu des nouvelles difficultés rencontrées par Dexia, le groupe n’a pas été en mesure de respecter son engagement ni de rétablir sa viabilité à long terme.

Overeenkomstig artikel 53 Wet Continuïteit Ondernemingen (hierna “WCO”) is de deelname aan de stemming voorbehouden aan de schuldeisers in de opschorting op wiens rechten het reorganisatieplan een weerslag heeft. Het begrip “weerslag” moet ruim geïnterpreteerd worden en omvat alle maatregelen waarin een reorganisatieplan kan voorzien, zoals een opschortende termijn, een schuldvermindering of elke andere wijziging van de schuldvordering.

The new law of 19 March 2012 amending the Belgian Companies Code on the liquidation procedure which entered into force on 17 May 2012 (the “Law”) has put an end to the legal uncertainty and the controversial practice that arose from the law of 2 June 2006 regarding the realisation of the dissolution and liquidation of a company in one single act.

This new Law has to be read alongside the law of 22 April 2012 amending the Judicial Code on the liquidation procedure of companies (also entered into force on 17 May 2012).

Following the entry into force of the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), an atypical silent shareholder must still be treated as a subordinate insolvency creditor for the purposes of section 39(1) no. 5 of the Insolvency Act (InsO) in the event that the company becomes insolvent, assuming the status of the silent shareholder is similar to that of a shareholder in a GmbH (private limited company).

In four judgments of 26 June 2012, case refs.: XI ZR 259 / 11, XI ZR 316 / 11, XI ZR 355 / 10 and XI ZR 356 / 10, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has again stated its position on the question of when there is a duty to disclose commission. In all four cases the investors purchased certificates from the same defendant bank to invest different amounts and these certificates turned out to be largely worthless following the insolvency of the issuer (Lehman Brothers Treasury Co. B.V.) and the guarantor (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.) in September 2008.