Der Wert der Insolvenzmasse ist Berechnungsgrundlage sowohl für die Vergütung des Insolvenzverwalters als auch die Gerichtsgebühr im Insolvenzverfahren. Obwohl die Regelungen hierzu gleich lauten, legt sie das OLG München unterschiedlich aus. Die Folge im aktuellen Fall ist eine knapp sechsfach höhere Bemessungsgrundlage zugunsten der Gerichtskasse. Die Mehrheit der Oberlandesgerichte teilt diese Sichtweise nicht. Damit begründet die Rechtsprechung des OLG München einen deutlichen Standortnachteil für Betriebsfortführungen im Insolvenzverfahren im Bezirk des Oberlandesgerichts München.
Germany's major legal reform aiming to facilitate group insolvencies comes into effect on April 21, 2018 (full German text). The new law allows insolvency proceedings over companies within a corporate group to be concentrated at a single German insolvency court and/or to be administered by one insolvency administrator.
Budniok v Adjudicator, Insolvency Service [2017] EWHC 368 (Ch)
Chief Registrar Baister overturned the Adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the Debtor's COMI was an issue.
Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the Adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.
On 23 March 2017, the German Parliament passed new rules on criminal law measures for recovery of criminal proceeds. In the future, enforcement of financial claims against criminal offenders will be widely handled by the public prosecution. Whilst the new rules may facilitate access to compensation for private parties affected by crimes, intellectual property right owners fighting counterfeiters may often find civil enforcement more promising.
Cornerstones of new rules
New EU Regulation on Cross-Border Preservation of Accounts Potentially Useful Tool to Secure Assets in EU Member States
A recent decision by the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has caused significant concerns in the restructuring community because it will severely complicate future restructurings in Germany or even make them impossible overall. In its decision dated 28 November 2016 (GrS 1/15, published on 8 February 2017) the court held that the so- called restructuring decree (circular on taxation of restructuring profits / Sanierungserlass) dated 27 March 2003 (IV A 6 S 2140 8/03, BStBl. I 2003, 240, amended by circular letter dated 22 December 2009 (IV C 9 S 4140/07/10001-01, BStBl.
The Supreme Court has ruled that some family trust structures will be ineffective in protecting assets from claims by former partners and, potentially, other creditors.
The decision in Clayton v Clayton has implications for everyone who establishes trusts to manage relationship property, estate planning and insolvency risk.
The facts
In Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd [2016] EWHC 1001 (Ch), Mr Shloesberg applied for an order restraining Dechert (a firm of solicitors) from acting for Avonwick (the first respondent) and Mr Shloesberg's Trustees in bankruptcy (the third respondents).
A director is not absolutely liable for all losses suffered by a company on his or her watch.
So the Court of Appeal has ruled in a recent liquidation dispute.
The context
Rowan Johnston, a former investor and director in NZNet, pumped funds into the company when it ran into difficulties, but found that NZNet’s managing director Stephen Andrews had misled him about the company’s financial position.
On 15 September 2011, he resigned his directorship and a couple of months later, NZNet went into liquidation.
A recent interlocutory decision (Action Media Ltd v Mitchell [2015] NZHC 3121) in ongoing litigation between the liquidators and the former director and shareholder of Action Media Ltd (In Liquidation) gives some guidance on the relationship between the liquidators' powers under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993 and their obligations to discover relevant documents under their control. The defendants had requested discovery from the liquidators of certain correspondence between the liquidators and the IRD, and of pre-liquidation correspondence between the company and