Seit einer unveröffentlichten Entscheidung des OLG Celle vom 01. April 2016 (8 W 20/16) wird intensiv darüber diskutiert, ob Ansprüche gegen Geschäftsführer nach § 64 GmbHG wegen Zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife unter der D&O-Versicherung versichert sind. Mit Urteil vom 20. Juli 2018 hat nunmehr auch das OLG Düsseldorf entschieden, dass eine D&O-Versicherung grundsätzlich nicht die GmbH-Geschäftsführerhaftung gemäß § 64 GmbHG wegen nach Insolvenzreife getätigter rechtswidriger Zahlungen deckt.
Kernaussagen der Entscheidung des OLG Düsseldorf
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.
Mit Urteil vom 26. April 2018 (IX ZR 238/17) hat der IX. Zivilsenat des Bundesgerichtshofs (BGH) erstmals die in Literatur und Praxis bisher hochumstrittene Frage entschieden, ob Geschäftsleiter einer eigenverwalteten Gesellschaft bei Verletzung der ihnen obliegenden insolvenzspezifischen Pflichten gegenüber Dritten gemäß §§ 60, 61 InsO analog grundsätzlich persönlich haftbar gemacht werden können. Der BGH hat in seinem Urteil eine solche persönliche Haftung angenommen und damit die Haftung von Geschäftsführern und Vorständen in der Eigenverwaltung verschärft.
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.
German insolvency proceedings expose company directors to high risks of personal liability. Claims brought on the basis of sec. 92(2), 93(3) German Companies Act (Aktiengesetz, AktG) and sec. 64 German Limited Liability Companies Act can have disastrous financial consequences. Damages can be in the millions. Therefore many company directors purchase directors’ and officers’ liability insurances (D&O insurance) to protect their personal assets.
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.
Summary
In May 2017, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), Az. XI ZR 571/15, has given its views for the first time on bridging loans (Überbrückungskredite) and their validity in a restructuring scenario.
