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.

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 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.

Background

The German Insolvency Act says an insolvency administrator may sell a "moveable object" on which a right to separate satisfaction (Absonderungsrecht) exists if such object is in his possession. The right to separate satisfaction entitles creditors with such a right to be satisfied ahead of all other creditors from the proceeds of selling a separate pool of assets within the insolvent estate

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

Background

In cases where upstream or cross-stream securities are granted by a German limited liability company (”GmbH“), the German capital maintenance rules need to be considered. Under these rules assets that are required for the maintenance of GmbH’s registered share capital may not be paid out to the shareholders. This payout prohibition concerns not only payments, but also granting of securities in favour of loans granted to the shareholders. The managing directors of a GmbH are personally liable for payouts made in violation of these rules.