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).

The recent case of Re J T Frith Ltd [2012] EWHC 196 (Ch) shows:

• how secured lenders may surrender their security in order to participate in the prescribed part available for unsecured creditors on insolvency; and
• how intercreditor deeds may be worded to allow senior secured creditors to participate in the prescribed part, despite retaining their security.

Background

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.

In two recent judgments, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with the resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion of a land charge and the resistance to insolvency of the claim for restitution of higher or equal ranking land charges which has been assigned for security purposes. Abandoning its existing case law, the BGH answered the question of resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion from the register as per section 1179a of the German Civil Code in the affirmative in its judgment dated 27 April 2012 (BGH, judgment of 27.04.2012 – V ZR 270 / 10).

Summary

The High Court has held in the “Extended Liens” application that a “general lien” granted by a client of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) over financial collateral held by LBIE as security for obligations owed by the client to LBIE or any other Lehman entity was a valid floating charge, both in relation to the client’s debts to LBIE and its debts to LBIE’s affiliates.

On 1 November 2012, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the Special Administrators (“SAs”) of MF Global UK Ltd (“MFGUK”), in relation to a claim by MF Global Inc (“MFGI”) arising from certain repo-to-maturity transactions (the “RTM Application”). These transactions concerned the repo of European debt securities by MFGI to MFGUK, which were governed by a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (“GMRA”).

This update highlights developments in the administration of MF Global UK (“MFG”) since our last alert dated 15 June 2012.

Estimated outcomes

Now everything will be better! The new ESUG legislation which entered into force on 1 March 2012 has generated huge expectations. The somewhat unwieldy title of “Law for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Businesses” covers a raft of significant changes to the Insolvency Act and existing restructuring regulations. Its objectives are ambitious. The ESUG is intended to make business restructuring easier, more effective and faster – thus a press release from the Federal Ministry of Justice dated 23 February 2012.

In insolvency proceedings, claims for repayment of shareholder loans – particularly if granted to a company limited by shares or a limited commercial partnership – are generally subordinate. In its judgment of 15 November 2011 (II ZR 6/11), the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) addressed whether and for what period this also applied to corresponding claims by former shareholders.