Seit dem 1. Januar 2019 haben Schuldner bei Vorliegen bestimmter Voraussetzungen neu die Möglichkeit, mittels eines Gesuchs zu verlangen, dass ungerechtfertigte Betreibungen nicht auf dem Betreibungsregisterauszug ersichtlich sind. Neben dieser neuen Möglichkeit hat das Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG) zusätzliche kleinere Änderungen erfahren, welche in diesem Beitrag kurz aufgezeigt werden.

In unserer Blogserie „Epic fails“ haben wir bereits über einige Fallstricke bei Restrukturierungen berichtet, wie beim Abschluss eines Rahmeninteressenausgleichs oder zuletzt beim fehlenden

The German Federal Court of Justice has tightened its grip on company directors again. In a recent judgment on directors’ liability in insolvency situations, the Court clarified the scope of sections 60- 61 of the German Insolvency Act.

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.

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.

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 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.

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