The statistics show that over 10,000 English limited companies operate in Germany. The company is registered in the Companies Register in the UK, but has a branch active in Germany, which is registered in German Company registries. On 10 December 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) decided on the question whether the liability of the director of English registered Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd (‘KMD’), which was subjected to German insolvency proceedings, should be determined by English law or by German law.

Although the EU Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law have been with us for some time, decisions involving the court’s recognition of foreign proceedings continue to evolve and will – of necessity – turn on the specific facts of every case. We investigate two recent decisions which came up with very different results.

The background – Re OGX Petroloeo E Gas S.A. [2016] EWHC 25

The European Court of Justice contradicts the Italian Court of Cassation and Constitutional Court andrules that a partial payment of VAT is possible, provided that an independent expert certifies that there isno better alternative for the Tax Authorities

The case

The European Court of Justice has held that a director of an English company can be liable for breach of German company law where insolvency proceedings are opened in Germany.

Based on a referral by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) the ECJ held that provisions such as § 64 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG) which regulates the personal liability of German GmbH directors in cases of insolvency, can be regarded as an insolvency law rule by virtue of Art. 4 para. 1 European Insolvency Regulation. The provision can therefore be applicable to a UK limited company (having its centre of main interest in Germany) and its director respectively, in accordance with European law: according to Art. 4 para.

Daycare company Estro was declared bankrupt in July 2014, but the undertaking was relaunched immediately, as the relaunch was prepared in a ‘pre-pack’ insolvency. All 3600 employees of the bankrupt company were dismissed by the administrator. About 2600 employees were immediately employed again by the relaunched company, which company was a so called ‘connected party’ as the shareholder also held a substantial part of the shares of Estro.

Introduction

A referendum on whether the UK should leave or remain within the EU will take place on 23 June 2016. This briefing considers what the legal consequences of a vote to leave the EU (Brexit) might be for the UK restructuring and insolvency market. Its purpose is not to influence readers towards either the “Leave” or “Remain” camp; rather, it is intended to illustrate the legal changes that Brexit would cause and to consider how the UK might respond to those changes.

Including an unsecured creditor  in an agreed payments waterfall does not by itself confer on that unsecured creditor  the benefit of a mortgagee’s usual duties on enforcement of security, or a direct claim against the sale proceeds.

1. Employment in a Member State of workers resident therein by companies declared insolvent that, notwithstanding formal registration in a third country, have their real seat in said Member State

In case of arrangement with creditors under Article 160 of the Bankruptcy Law, Article 182-ter, introduced by Article 146 of D.Lgs. n. 5/2006, expressly states that taxpayers can propose a partial payment of income taxes, but not of VAT and withholding taxes, for which the payment can be only deferred.