This article considers relief from directors' duties to avoid trading whilst insolvent during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and Germany. Comparative insolvency law literature traditionally compares Australia to jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand. However, Germany has a track record of using insolvency law to manage social and economic crises. The German approach suggests solutions to critical issues not dealt with in the Australian safe harbour legislation, such as the failure to suspend other statutory duties to provide clear guidance to directors on the balancing of various interests, and the treatment of potential voidable transactions and new monies (i.e., new funding or credit). The responses in both jurisdictions suggest a change in priorities away from creditor protection, a key raison d'être for these types of duties, during a crisis. Similar to the German approach of turning the obligation to file for formal insolvency proceedings off and on, the further safe harbour adopted in Australia as part of a new restructuring procedure for small businesses, which commenced on January 1, 2021, suggests that the use of safe harbours could become a permanent crisis-management tool in Australia too, with potential consequences for the balance between debtor and creditor interests.

中文翻译：

---

董事在危机中防止破产交易的职责：澳大利亚对 COVID-19 的反应和德国的经验教训

本文考虑在澳大利亚和德国的 COVID-19 大流行期间免除董事在破产期间避免交易的职责。比较破产法文献传统上将澳大利亚与英国和新西兰等司法管辖区进行比较。然而，德国在使用破产法来管理社会和经济危机方面有着良好的记录。德国的方法为澳大利亚安全港立法中未涉及的关键问题提出了解决方案，例如未能暂停其他法定职责以就平衡各种利益向董事提供明确指导，以及处理潜在的可撤销交易和新资金（即新的资金或信贷）。两个司法管辖区的回应都表明，债权人保护的优先事项发生了变化，这是一个关键的存在理由 在危机期间执行这些类型的职责。与德国关闭和开启提交正式破产程序的义务的方法类似，澳大利亚作为新的小型企业重组程序的一部分而采用的进一步安全港，该程序于 2021 年 1 月 1 日开始，建议使用安全港也可能成为澳大利亚永久的危机管理工具，对债务人和债权人利益之间的平衡产生潜在影响。