The English Court of Appeal has recently decided that a corporation that held shares in a company remained a shareholder notwithstanding the shareholding company's dissolution.

BWE Estates Limited had two shareholders: an individual named David who held 75% of its shares and a company, Belvedere Limited, which held the remaining 25%. Although Belvedere was dissolved in 1996, it remained listed as a shareholder in BWE's share register.

In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.

In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.

The Court of Appeal has recently dismissed an appeal from the High Court's judgment (discussed in our September 2016 update) setting aside a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 after finding that the challenging creditors, who had voted against the compromise, had been unfairly prejudiced by the decision to call only one meeting of creditors.

Nachdem das Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz bereits im März 2015 einen Referentenentwurf hinsichtlich eines Gesetzes zur Verbesserung der Rechtssicherheit bei Anfechtungen nach der Insolvenzordnung und nach dem Anfechtungsgesetz vorgelegt hatte, hat der Bundestag mehr als ein Jahr nach der ersten Lesung den Gesetzesentwurf am 16. Februar 2017 doch noch verabschiedet. Nachdem nun auch der Bundesrat am 10.

Mit seinem Beschluss vom 28. November 2016 (veröffentlicht am 8. Februar 2017) hat der Große Senat des Bundesfinanzhofs („BFH“) den sogenannten „Sanierungserlass“ (BStBl. I 2003, 240; ergänzt durch BStBl. I 2010, 18) des Bundesfinanzministeriums („BMF“) verworfen. Dieser hatte bislang eine Steuerbefreiung von Sanierungsgewinnen über den Weg eines Billigkeitserlasses der Steuerzahlung nach §§ 163, 227 Abgabenordnung („AO“) ermöglicht.

In Day v The Official Assignee as Liquidator of GN Networks Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 2400, the High Court rejected a claim that the funding arrangement at issue constituted maintenance or champerty.

Ausgangssituation

In einer vor wenigen Tagen veröffentlichten Entscheidung vom 14. November 2012 (2 Sa 837/10) hat das LAG Nürnberg sich mit den Anforderungen an die Insolvenzfestigkeit eines Contractual Trust Arrangements (CTA) beschäftigt. Im Ergebnis hat es dem streitgegenständlichen CTA die Insolvenzfestigkeit abgesprochen.

Hintergrund

The German Parliament has, in response to the ongoing crisis in the financial markets, extended a legislation, which originally came into force on October 18, 2008, amending, inter alia, parts of the German Insolvency Code. These amendments, which had in certain cases lead to a relaxation of the obligation to file for insolvency, will now be valid without limitation in time. It can be expected that it will be published and come into force already this year.

Obligation to File for Insolvency