Introduction
The German FCJ (IX ZR 143/13, 17 December 2015) relates to the requirements and effects of a settlement between an insolvency administrator and the personally liable partners of an insolvent partnership.
Background
In Germany, corporate entities are not allowed to act as insolvency administrators (sec 56 I 1 Insolvency Code). Instead, the insolvency court selects and appoints experienced individuals.
Background
Pursuant to Sec. 15 para. 1 of the German Insolvency Code (lnsolvenzordnung, lnsO) the managing directors of a company may individually file a request to open insolvency proceedings on behalf of the company, even if they only have joint power of representation together with other managing directors. This special right to file the request on behalf of the company prevails over the general or agreed provisions regarding the power of representation of the directors.
The Rules
(German federal high court – decision of September 24th, 2015 – IX ZR 272/13)
Legal background
In accordance with sec. 166 para 1 German Insolvency Code (“InsO”) an insolvency administrator is entitled to utilise tangible assets in his possession, even where the assets are encumbered.
Although the German Insolvency Code regulates the disposal and utilization of tangible assets and claims encumbered in favour of a creditor no regulation exists for rights such as shares, trademarks or intellectual property rights.
Legal background
Under German criminal law, it is illegal for the management not to fulfil tax obligations when due, whereas under German insolvency law a company must treat all creditors equally when the company is illiquid. By paying taxes after the company becomes illiquid, the management would violate this obligation and prefer the state.
Key points
The ‘qualified subordination’ tool is a useful device for a German company that may be balance-sheet insolvent.
Background
German insolvency law requires the directors of a company to file for insolvency when the company is over-indebted pursuant to sec. 19 German Insolvency Code (‘InsO’). The failure to comply with this obligation is a criminal offence, and can also trigger directors’ liabilities under German corporate law.
‘Qualified Subordination’
Minor instalment payments alone – also in the event of late payments – may not be sufficient to trigger knowledge of the debtor’s imminent illiquidity within the meaning of section 133 German Insolvency Act
Overview
The German Government proposes amendments to the German insolvency Act (‘InsO’), which will limit the insolvency administrator’s rescission rights, especially his claims under s. 133 para 1 InsO.
Current Law
In a situation where the survival of a German company depends on restructuring measures by third parties (mainly lenders) who fear that the shareholders may use their hold-out position in a potential subsequent exit by sale of the shares, it is an option for the lenders to demand from the shareholders that the shares are transferred to a trustee to be held in a “double-sided trust” (doppelnützige Treuhand).
With a recent draft act to amend the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung – InsO), the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection intends to reduce uncertainty regarding insolvency claw-back, in particular regarding Sec. 133 InsO. The result may be that restructuring opinions that are now market standard when (re)financing financially troubled companies in Germany become redundant.
Current legal status