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).

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).

The draft Banking Business (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Law 201- has been adopted by the States of Jersey and is awaiting the approval of the Privy Council. The draft Law will amend the Banking Business (Jersey) Law 1991 to provide for offences and impose duties under the Depositors Compensation Scheme.

Introduction

In finance transactions, security over Guernsey situs assets is usually taken by way of security agreement under the Security Interests (Guernsey) Law, 1993, as amended (the "Law").

The States of Guernsey has announced the recommendations from the consultation carried out on proposed changes to the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008. This coincides with a judgment from the Royal Court highlighting the timely nature of proposed changes.

The 2008 Law was the result of a wholesale revision and consolidation of the corporate legal framework. Whilst its focus was on corporate law it also encompassed the insolvency regime in Guernsey. The consultation exercise was to determine what, if any, changes may be required now that the 2008 Law had been in place for some time.

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.

The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) pronounced on double securities in its eagerly anticipated judgment of 1 December 2011 (IX ZR 11/11). The practice was controversial even before the Act for the Modernisation of Limited Liability Company Law and for the Prevention of Abuse (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen, MoMiG) came into force. “Double security” arises where security is provided over a creditor‘s claim both by the company itself and by its shareholders.