Shareholders are among the many who have lost money in the multi-billion euro insolvency of the former DAX30 payment provider Wirecard and its allegedly fraudulent business practices. Wirecard had to file for insolvency after assets worth €1.9bn could not be found. Collectively, the shareholders claimed around €7bn in damages for intentional capital markets law violations by former Wirecard executives. Unsurprisingly, the shareholders are now trying to minimise their losses and secure at least partial payment on their claims from the insolvency estate.

In brief

While the timing of competing English and German insolvency applications in Re Galapagos allowed for clear determination of jurisdiction under the UK Insolvency Regulation, there remains potential uncertainty as to how similar competing applications made following 31 December 2020 will be resolved in the post-Brexit environment.

Background

Following several insolvency cases of high-flying start-up companies, a helpful recent ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf) has specified the requirements for going concern forecasts for start-up companies. 

Background 

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.

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.

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has taken the opportunity to clarify its position on section 17(2) German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung, InsO).  According to sec. 17(2) a debtor is deemed insolvent if he is unable to pay his debts as they fall due (Zahlungsunfähigkeit).

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.

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. 

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.