Der Bundesgerichtshof hat mit Urteil vom 24. Juli 2024 (II ZR 206/22) entschieden, dass ein aus dem Amt ausgeschiedener Geschäftsführer gemäß § 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. § 15a InsO grundsätzlich auch für Schäden von Neugläubigern haftet, die erst nach seinem Ausscheiden in vertragliche Beziehungen mit der Gesellschaft getreten sind, wenn die verschleppungsbedingte Gefahrenlage zum Zeitpunkt der Schadensentstehung noch fortbestand.

Sachverhalt

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 a legal dispute is brought to court, court fees are payable. Court fee is the fee levied by the judicial authority for handling the case. The amount of these fees depends, for example, on the nature of the case, a litigant’s income, and whether a natural person or legal entity is litigating. Under these circumstances, a (legal) person may qualify for the reduced court fee for insolvent persons.

Reduced court fee for insolvent persons

Pursuant to the Civil Cases Fees Act, the reduced court fee for the insolvent may be levied in the following two cases:

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

The court has provided guidance on how to protect personal representatives in potentially insolvent estates in Wedgwood v Hosein and another [2024].

A recent judgment in Kevin Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) the High Court considers the ‘ownership and control’ test in Bankruptcy, involving trustee powers and Russian Bank creditors.

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?

Re Touradji Private Equity Master Fund Ltd において、ケイマン諸島大法廷は、任意清算中の3つのファンドについて、被害を受けた一部の投資家と共同任意清算人による申請に基づき、投資マネージャーの異議を棄却して、監督命令を下しました。

この決定は、裁判所が当該申請について適用する審査基準の指針を示し、会社法（Companies Act）第131条(b)に基づいて任意清算を公的清算に転換することが効果的、経済的、迅速的であると裁判所が考える各種の事例を示しています。

監督命令に適用される審査基準

監督命令とは、裁判所が、任意清算中の会社について、破産管理人としての資格を保有している複数名の者を公的清算人として選任することを含む命令をいいます[1]。この命令は、会社が裁判所によって清算されたかのような効果を有します[2]。すなわち、監督命令が下されると、清算人の権限が拡大され、任意清算中に行使できていた会社株主の残存権限は排斥されます[3]。

会社法においては、裁判所が任意清算について監督命令を下す条件がいくつが規定されており、これには以下の各場合が含まれます。

Rabindra S Nathan, Shearn Delamore & Co

This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight

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.