In a recent case decided by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2012 – IX ZR 169 / 11), an energy supplier had entered into a contract with a customer “which should also terminate without notice if the customer makes an application for insolvency or where preliminary insolvency proceedings are initiated or opened based on an application by a creditor”. When the customer was forced to declare insolvency, the energy supplier and the customer’s insolvency administrator entered into a new energy-supply contract at higher rates, subject to a review of the legal position.

Under the new liability standard set out in section 64 sentence 3 of the GmbHG, which was introduced by the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), the managing director of a company is liable for payments to shareholders which necessarily cause the insolvency of the company. The requirement for causality of the payment for insolvency and actual determination of insolvency were matters of dispute. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now established clarity on both points (judgment of 9 October 2012 II ZR 298 / 11).

In einer vor wenigen Tagen veröffentlichten Entscheidung vom 14. November 2012 (2 Sa 837/10) hat das LAG Nürnberg sich mit den Anforderungen an die Insolvenzfestigkeit eines Contractual Trust Arrangements (CTA) beschäftigt. Im Ergebnis hat es dem streitgegenständlichen CTA die Insolvenzfestigkeit abgesprochen.

Hintergrund

The acquirer attempted to contractually transfer employees to a so-called "transitional company" (Transfergesellschaft) for a few hours only. The employees involved had previously signed five different employment offers presented by the acquirer, some of them limited, some unlimited in time. The acquirer subsequently accepted one of the offers, which was a fixed term contract.

The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) pronounced on double securities in its eagerly anticipated judgment of 1 December 2011 (IX ZR 11/11). The practice was controversial even before the Act for the Modernisation of Limited Liability Company Law and for the Prevention of Abuse (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen, MoMiG) came into force. “Double security” arises where security is provided over a creditor‘s claim both by the company itself and by its shareholders.

Restructurings have become an integral part of the reality of the German debt and equity markets.

In four judgments of 26 June 2012, case refs.: XI ZR 259 / 11, XI ZR 316 / 11, XI ZR 355 / 10 and XI ZR 356 / 10, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has again stated its position on the question of when there is a duty to disclose commission. In all four cases the investors purchased certificates from the same defendant bank to invest different amounts and these certificates turned out to be largely worthless following the insolvency of the issuer (Lehman Brothers Treasury Co. B.V.) and the guarantor (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.) in September 2008.

In two recent judgments, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with the resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion of a land charge and the resistance to insolvency of the claim for restitution of higher or equal ranking land charges which has been assigned for security purposes. Abandoning its existing case law, the BGH answered the question of resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion from the register as per section 1179a of the German Civil Code in the affirmative in its judgment dated 27 April 2012 (BGH, judgment of 27.04.2012 – V ZR 270 / 10).

The claimant had acquired certificates of a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Inc., New York, in March 2008.

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) in its decision of 17 February 2011 (IX ZR 131/10) has been dealing with the issue which – since the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbrauchen - MoMiG) came into effect – is being controversially discussed as to whether loans by family members (in particular the shareholder’s siblings, spouse and children) in insolvency proceedings will be given subordinate ranking.