Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies usually want to have influence over whom they are associated with. That's why shareholders often agree on a pre-emptive right (Aufgriffsrecht) to purchase existing shares in certain cases, e.g. in case of insolvency proceedings against a shareholder. However, according to the recent case law of the Regional Court of Linz on limited liability companies, pre-emptive rights to purchase the shares of an insolvent shareholder are invalid and unenforceable.

Know your co-shareholders

The Austrian Supreme Court has recently found that insolvency related avoidance claims can be sold. This may open a whole new business segment and will most certainly have a material impact on defendants in avoidance proceedings.

Assignability of insolvency related avoidance claims

It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?

Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.

The decision of the High Court of Australia in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28; 261 CLR 132 (Ramsay) clarified the limits of a Bankruptcy Court's discretion to "go behind" a judgment, that is, to investigate whether the underlying debt relied upon for the making of a sequestration order is, in truth and reality, owing to the petitioning creditor. Recently, the Ramsay decision was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Dunkerley v Comcare [2019] FCA 1002 (Dunkerley).

On 19 June 2019, the much-anticipated High Court appeal in the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (also known as the "Amerind appeal") was handed down.

A financial crisis and situations where insolvency is imminent are not only challenging for a company and its management, but also entail significant liability risks for management in the case of subsequent insolvency proceedings. Payments made after a company has become materially insolvent (i.e. illiquid or overindebted under Austrian insolvency law), but before the 60-day deadline for filing for insolvency has expired, are risky. Which payments are allowed according to the Austrian Supreme Court?

Scope of liability

The list of successful restructurings outside insolvency proceedings is as long as it is confidential. Every year, companies of all sizes are stabilised and sustainably restructured without the stigma of insolvency proceedings. However, until now there has been no European legal framework for pre-insolvency restructurings and only a few national laws explicitly provide for the possibility of such preventive restructurings. This will change now.

Liquidators are encouraged to seek advice or directions from the Court as to the discharge of their responsibilities. But who bears the costs of such proceedings, of the liquidator and of any contradictor involved?

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background