BGH, Urt. v. 9.2.2021, Az. II ZR 28/20

Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung des BGH haften Kommanditisten im Rahmen eines Insolvenzverfahrens nach §§ 171 Abs. 1 und 2, 172 Abs. 4 HGB gegenüber der Insolvenzmasse nur insoweit, wie die Inanspruchnahme zur Gläubigerbefriedigung erforderlich ist.

When a Cayman Islands company (CayCo) goes into official liquidation, various antecedent transactions entered into in the lead up to that liquidation may be set aside, thereby allowing the recovery of assets of the CayCo to maximise the return to its stakeholders. This snapshot sets out a summary of challenges that may be made to antecedent transactions in the Cayman Islands. These may also apply to Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Exempted Limited Partnerships and, in certain circumstances, to foreign companies, but this snapshot focuses on CayCos.

The following 10 cases have been reported in our Bankruptcy & Insolvency practice area:

Re Total Truss Systems — Retrospective orders made for liquidators of corporate trustee

Introduction  

Under Singapore bankruptcy law, when a person is adjudged bankrupt, any disposition of property made by him from the date of the bankruptcy application is void unless the court consents to or ratifies the disposition. However, will the court ratify the disposition of assets made pursuant to an order for division of assets in divorce proceedings, and in what circumstances will it do so? These were the issues considered in the Singapore High Court case of Ong Dan Tze Magdalene v Chee Yoh Chuang & Anor [2021] SGHC 129.

• The judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited recognised that insolvent parties have an unfettered right to adjudicate.
• In so doing the judgment opened the door for Insolvency Practitioners to use adjudication, or the threat of adjudication, to resolve disputes arising under construction contracts.

PRIOR TO BRESCO

In the latest High Court decision relating to Company Voluntary Arrangements in the UK, the judge held that the Regis hairdressing group CVA should be revoked on the basis that it favoured shareholders at the expense of landlord creditors

Summary

In a 12 page decision signed July 6, 2011, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to dismiss, holding that a complaint that sets forth only conclusory allegations parroting the statutory language of the Bankruptcy Code is insufficient. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

１ 事案の概要

本件は、破産者が自動車の販売会社（A社）から購入した 自動車（本件自動車）について、契約に基づいて、自動車の 購入代金を立替払いした信販会社（B社）が、本件自動車に かかる所有権留保に基づき、自動車を破産者から引き揚げ、 本件自動車を査定し、破産者に不足額（未払の立替払金債 権等と自動車の評価額の差額）を通知した行為について、破 産管財人が、破産法162条1項1号により否認権の行使を主 張した事案です。

大まかな事実関係は、以下のとおりです。

① 破産者、A社（販売会社）及びB社（信販会社）の三者 で立替払契約締結（破産者が自己に代わってA社に 立替払することをB社に委託し、B社がA社に自動車 購入代金を一括して支払う。破産者はB社に対して毎 月分割で立替払分に分割手数料を加算した金額を支 払う。「本件立替払契約」。）。

本件立替払契約には、以下の条項がある。

（ア）破産者は、自動車の登録名義のいかんを問わず、A 社に留保されている自動車の所有権が、B社がA社に 立替払したときにはB社に移転し、立替払契約に基づ く債務を完済するまでB社に留保されることを承諾す る。

The Bottom Line:

The Bottom Line: