In its April 2018 decision, the BGH ruled on the question whether the directors of a company that has been granted debtor in possession status by the respective insolvency court can become personally liable for a breach of a duty of care vis-à-vis the creditors like an insolvency administrator. The underlying legal question was the subject of a controversial academic discussion in the past.

Under German law, there are strict legal obligations for the managing directors of an insolvent company to file for insolvency. Failure to comply exposes a managing director to civil and criminal liability. It is therefore important for managing directors to know how to test whether their company is insolvent. One of the legal reasons for insolvency is illiquidity and the second senate of the German Federal Civil Court (“BGH”) has, in a decision dated 19 December 2017 (II ZR 88/16), clarified a question regarding the illiquidity test.

Bekanntlich ist die Qualifizierung eines Darlehens als Gesellschafterdarlehen in der Insolvenz des Darlehensnehmers besonders nachteilig, da Forderungen aus Gesellschafterdarlehen oder dem gleichgestellte Forderungen gemäß § 39 Abs.1 Nr. 5 InsO nachrangig sind und auch hierfür gestellte Sicherheiten nicht verwertet werden können.

OLG Hamm Entscheidung zu mittelbaren Gesellschafterdarlehen

A recent ruling of the German Federal Civil Court (Bundesgerichtshof (“BGH”)) is a reminder of the risks which shareholders of a German company can face in an insolvency of their German subsidiary.

A director is not absolutely liable for all losses suffered by a company on his or her watch.

So the Court of Appeal has ruled in a recent liquidation dispute.

The context

Rowan Johnston, a former investor and director in NZNet, pumped funds into the company when it ran into difficulties, but found that NZNet’s managing director Stephen Andrews had misled him about the company’s financial position.

On 15 September 2011, he resigned his directorship and a couple of months later, NZNet went into liquidation.

Mr Pala and Mr Luthera were directors of Shanton, a large retailer of women's clothing in New Zealand.  BTC Group Limited (BTC) was in the business of supplying clothing to Shanton in accordance with Shanton's stock orders.  BTC had obtained guarantees from Shanton's directors, pursuant to which each director guaranteed the obligations of Shanton to BTC.  Earlier this year, Shanton was unable to pay its debts as they fell due and was placed into voluntary administration owing creditors over $7m.

Directors beware – unless you are careful to maintain a subsidiary’s independence, the parent company may be liable for the debts of its subsidiary.

That is the effect of a recent High Court decision invoking a rarely used provision in the Companies Act.

We analyse the judgment and draw some practical advice from it.

Section 271

Section 271(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) has been used only rarely and is unique to New Zealand law, although Ireland has a similar provision.

Terms of Trade

Ensure your Terms are robust

If asked to provide information to a liquidator, the safest course may be to provide it under oath under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993 because the High Court has found that immunity will apply to such statements.

We look at the decision.

The case

In Strategic Finance Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Strategic Nominees Limited (in receivership) v Bridgman and Sanson CA 553/2011 [2013] NZCA 357 the Court of Appeal has, for the moment, settled what constitutes an "account receivable", and this provides certainty regarding the scope of the assets available to meet preferential creditor claims ahead of secured creditors with general security agreements.