Conventional economic reasoning suggests that formal insolvency proceedings should commence once the greater of the going concern value or the liquidation value of a firm falls below the value of its liabilities. Since this test is difficult to apply in practice, an additional cash flow test is needed: formal insolvency proceedings should commence if a firm is not able to pay its due debts. Two factors complicate this analysis: risk-shifting incentives of shareholders/managers in the vicinity of insolvency and the (rapid) decline of a firm's going concern value once it approaches insolvency. The former problem should be addressed by a liability rule for wrongful trading. Based on a review of the current legal position in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, a uniform European rule is proposed that imposes liability on managers of insolvent companies for trading while they knew or should have known that insolvency was more probable than not, unless they can show that they took all reasonable steps to avoid insolvency. The decline of a firm's going concern value once it approaches insolvency provides all stakeholders with an incentive to try a workout to save as much of the going concern value as possible. However, workouts often fail in practice due to free-rider effects. Cooperation duties are proposed as a means to support workouts. Such duties should be triggered once a workout is initiated. It is suggested that bankruptcy rules, in general, and rules on the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, in particular, should in principle be enabling rather than mandatory.

Protection of corporate creditors has become an important topic within the European Union. At EU level, discussion has been sparked by widespread dissatisfaction with some very rigid and cumbersome provisions, and even with the whole concept of the Second Company Law Directive. At EU Member State level, three landmark decisions by the European Court of Justice – Centros, Überseering, and Inspire Art – opened the way for an all-out competition between the different company forms provided for by national company laws. At both levels, albeit for different reasons, British company law – and in particular the absence of any legal capital in the private limited company – acts as the main driving force putting pressure on the concept of legal capital as enshrined in the Second Directive, which in turn was modeled on German company law notions.

The High Level Group of Company Law Experts provided the appropriate starting point for the present discussion by dealing not only with the raising and maintenance of capital, but by also taking up the wrongful trading remedy (s. 214 British Insolvency Act) and the equitable subordination remedy. This present article builds upon this broader approach, seeking to develop a conceptual framework for an efficient creditor protection regime within a purely national setting, i.e., leaving aside the additional problems created by pseudo-foreign companies and the impact of the provisions of the EU Treaty for the free movement of companies on national company laws.

Given the rich variety of creditor protection mechanisms within EU Member States, any attempt at developing even a high-level framework has to start by identifying the relevant risks against which creditors need protection and the required extent of such protection. Against this backdrop, any jurisdiction has to make a choice whether to rely mostly on creditor self-help or on mandatory protection rules. In principle, since all mechanisms for creditor self-help are inherently costly and fail to protect involuntary (tort) creditors and “weak” contractual creditors as effectively as they do “strong” contractual creditors, there is a case for mandatory protection rules. The article then goes on to review the different well-known mechanisms for mandatory creditor protection. In line with earlier findings and the criticism mostly from English scholars, the case for a German-style legal capital regime turns out to be weak, at best.

On the other hand, since shareholders' incentive to act to the detriment of creditors increases with the company becoming financially distressed, it is important to provide for mechanisms that will work to effectively control any opportunistic behavior on the shareholder's part. In this respect, equitable subordination of a shareholder's right as well as the wrongful trading remedy may serve important roles. The article concludes by taking a brief look at the resultant high-level framework for an efficient creditor protection regime.

The European Commission's May 2003 Action Plan ‘Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A Plan to Move Forward’ includes a proposal for new legislation on wrongful trading with a view to strengthening the personal accountability of directors in the case of a company's failure. The proposal builds on expert opinions that the existing law on wrongful trading in Great Britain is better capable of activating an early managerial response to a financial crisis than the German Insolvenzverschleppungshaftung (liability for delaying insolvency). This article challenges the alleged superiority of wrongful trading over Insolvenzverschleppungshaftung. It provides a detailed analysis of the case law under section 214 of the British Insolvency Act, which does not support the fundamental assumption underpinning the European endeavour, namely, that wrongful trading routinely imposes duties on the directors ahead of the onset of insolvency. Furthermore, the protection afforded to creditors under British law is less extensive than under German law as regards the amount of compensation for the creditors and, correspondingly, the financial risk incurred by the directors. Finally, the article looks at the special treatment of new creditors (Neugläubiger) under German law, which has the advantage of giving creditors a strong incentive to pursue delinquent directors.

A recent case in the English High Court, Re Continental Assurance Company of London plc (Singer v. Beckett), constitutes the first judicial pronouncement on wrongful trading (s. 214 of the Insolvency Act) which concerns a major company. The case should render us cautious about the alleged superiority of wrongful trading over creditor protection regimes in other European jurisdictions, notably the German Insolvenzverschleppungshaftung, and the consequential idea of the European Commission to propose a new directive on wrongful trading.