Gläubigerbenachteiligungsvorsatz bei der Vorsatzanfechtung im Rahmen von Grundstücksverkäufen (BGH, Urteil vom 22. Februar 2024 – IX ZR 226/20).

Insolvency and Restructuring Bulletin

The promulgation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) introduced the categorization of creditors as either “financial” or “operational”. The rights and powers of creditors as either financial or operational creditors though treated equally at the stage of initiation of proceedings under IBC, undergo a sea change once proceedings under IBC stands initiated.

Insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) are generally practical and solution-oriented. Creativity is rewarded and, if there is a conflict between insolvency law’s practical focus on achieving desirable commercial outcomes on the one hand, and the requirements—often technical in nature—under other statutes such as the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) on the other, courts often apply insolvency law in a manner that gives priority to achieving those commercial outcomes.

Introduction

When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?

The general rule is that claims of the bankruptcy estate against third parties (e.g., preference claims and tort claims) can be sold to third parties in a § 363 sale.[Fn. 1]

However, a recent opinion from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discusses whether a state’s champerty law impairs a § 363 sale.[Fn. 2] 

When the COVID-19 Pandemic incepted, and issues arose as to whether affected policyholders could seek Business Income and Civil Authority coverage from the presence or suspected presence of SARS-CoV-2 and consequent orders of Civil Authority, I thought that the easiest question to answer was whether such policyholders had suffered physical loss or damage (“PLOD”) to their property.

The Majority PLOD Rule Prior to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the Court determined that while disgorgement orders made by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) survive bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), administrative penalties may not.