Bundesgerichtshof, Urteil v. 24. August 2021, Az. X ZR 59/19 (BPatG) – Oszillationsantrieb

Im zugrundeliegenden Fall hatte das Bundespatentgericht die Nichtigkeitsklagen von insgesamt vier Klägern gegen den deutschen Teil eines Europäischen Patents abgewiesen (Urteil v. 26. Februar 2019, Az. 3 Ni 29/17). Alle vier Kläger legten hiergegen Berufung zum Bundesgerichtshof ein.

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) recently changed its interpretation of the law regarding clawback claims, Vorsatzanfechtung (case of actio pauliana). Here, we outline how the Court's position on clawback claims has changed and what this could mean for future claims.

What are the existing legal provisions?

The German Federal Court of Justice was recently asked to decide whether a waiver in favour of company director had been validated by the preliminary insolvency administrator's consent.

Background

We summarise the background and outcomes of Case C-73/20 – Oeltrans, an important ruling for liquidators faced with the avoidance of a third party payment and a conflict of laws.

The facts

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that a limited partner is not liable for debts incumbent on the insolvency estate incurred by an administrator in insolvency proceedings.

However, it was unclear who would be liable for debts incumbent on the insolvency estate pursuant to section 55(4) of the German Insolvency Act (the Act) incurred in preliminary insolvency proceedings. A recent BGH ruling on 28 January 2021 (IX ZR 54/20) now provides clarity.

Case summary

The COVID-19 pandemic in Germany is significantly affecting commercial landlords and tenants. The German legislator has taken various measures to mitigate the consequences of officially ordered business closures during lockdown and other pandemic-related adverse effects. 

For the benefit of our clients and friends investing in European distressed opportunities, our European Network is sharing some current developments.

Recent Developments

Das Oberlandesgericht München hat in einem bisher unveröffentlichten Hinweisbeschluss^[1] die Rechtsauffassung des Oberlandesgerichts Celle^[2] und des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorfs^[3] bestätigt, dass für Ansprüche des Insolvenzverwalters gegen Geschäftsführer wegen Zahlungen trotz Insolvenzreife kein Versicherungsschutz unter einer D&O-Versicherung besteht. Daneben hat das Oberlandesgericht München auch zur Verteilung der Darlegungs- und Beweislast in Abtretungskonstellationen Stellung bezogen.

Wi­der­le­gung der Ver­mu­tung ei­ner ein­ge­tre­te­nen Zah­lungs­un­fä­hig­keit durch Ein­ho­lung ei­nes Sach­ver­stän­di­gen­gut­ach­tens (BGH, Be­schluss vom 12. Sep­tem­ber 2019 – IX ZR 342/18)

Ein kürz­lich er­gan­ge­ner Be­schluss des BGH setzt sich mit der Fra­ge aus­ein­an­der, wie der An­fech­tungs­geg­ner der An­nah­me der Zah­lungs­un­fä­hig­keit des Schuld­ners im Pro­zess ent­ge­gen­tre­ten kann.

In some areas, the 2017 insolvency challenge reform provided creditors with better protection against insolvency challenges by insolvency administrators. This applies in particular to instalments and other deferred payment terms arranged with business partners. Initial court decisions have been issued in the meantime. Clarification was also provided relating to instalment payments, which were frequently arranged by bailiffs within the scope of enforcement cases.