In a recent judgment on directors’ liability (Bundesgerichtshof, 18 November 2020, IV ZR 217/19), the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the scope of D&O insurance coverage, holding that company directors are entitled to its protection.
Background
Das BAG begehrt in seiner Vorlage an den EuGH vom 16.10.2018 (Az.: 3 AZR 139/17) die Klärung der Frage, in welchem Rahmen der Erwerber eines Betriebs aus der Insolvenz des Veräußerers für Betriebsrenten gemäß § 613a BGB übergegangener Arbeitnehmer haften muss und ob seine bislang praktizierte erwerberfreundliche teleologische Reduktion des § 613a Abs. 1 BGB in diesem Zusammenhang unionsrechtskonform ist.
I. Einleitung
The UK government has lifted the current restrictions on statutory demands but imposed new temporary requirements for winding-up petitions presented from 1 October 2021 until 31 March 2022. The measures aim to protect companies from aggressive creditor enforcement as the economy opens up and other protections are lifted.
New requirements
The UK government has published new draft regulations to require mandatory scrutiny of administration sales to connected parties (such as the insolvent company’s existing directors or shareholders).
In the UK, a "pre-pack" is an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of a company’s business or assets is agreed with a purchaser prior to the appointment of administrators. The sale is carried out by the administrators immediately on, or shortly after, their appointment. Administrators must be licensed insolvency practitioners.
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.
Consumer law in Québec remains in constant evolution, and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) continues to be the subject of many court decisions each month.
In this new article in our series on consumer law, we present recent developments in this area from the perspective of Québec Court of Appeal decisions over the past 12 months, which shed some light on the rules of the CPA.
Au Québec, le droit de la consommation évolue régulièrement et la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (L.P.C.) continue de faire l’objet de plusieurs décisions des tribunaux chaque mois.
À l’occasion de la publication de ce nouveau bulletin de notre série en droit de la consommation, nous présentons les développements récents dans ce domaine sous l’angle des décisions des quelque 12 derniers mois de la Cour d’appel du Québec, qui apportent un éclairage sur des règles de la L.P.C.
Having ensured, to the extent possible, the safety of their workplace and workforce, many companies are turning their mind to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. All businesses are impacted, and in many cases, the impact will be adverse, whether caused by travel restrictions, office or workforce disruptions or decreased demand.
In most trading relationships, suppliers enter into deferred payment agreements, such as instalment sales, with their retailers in order to allow retailers to stock their inventory and to manage cash flow between the delivery of goods and the resale to the customer. The possibility of default on payments or often the insolvency of a trade customer/retailer exposes the supplier to considerable risk without control of its goods and without payment. As an unsecured creditor, the supplier then stands in an unfortunate position and may never recover its goods or receive payment.
From the public policy standpoint, there has been a shift towards more environmental stewardship in Canada, evidenced by heightened media attention on environmental issues and by an expanded legal framework relating to the management of environmental liabilities. For example, directors may be personally liable for violation of environmental statutes1 and may face reputational harm if the corporations they manage are found to have breached environmental rules or norms.