Der Bundestag hat am 8. November 2018 die von der Restrukturierungsbranche ersehnte gesetzliche Regelung zur Steuerbefreiung von Sanierungsgewinnen endlich auf den Weg gebracht. Es wird erwartet, dass auch der Bundesrat in Kürze seine Zustimmung erteilt.

Die Neuregelung:

The recently published report on the evaluation of the ESUG, the German law to facilitate the restructuring of companies, states that the changes introduced by the ESUG have been received positively overall, but that there is still room for improvement in many areas. Should the EU Restructuring Directive actually be adopted at the beginning of 2019, the legislator would have the opportunity to improve the ESUG legislation and implement the EU requirements for pre-insolvency restructuring proceedings in one bill.

Der frisch veröffentliche Bericht zur Evaluation des ESUG stellt fest, dass die durch das ESUG eingeführten Änderungen insgesamt positiv aufgenommen worden sind, aber an vielen Stellen noch Verbesserungsbedarf besteht. Sollte tatsächlich Anfang 2019 die EU-Restrukturierungsrichtlinie verabschiedet werden, hätte der Gesetzgeber die Möglichkeit in einem (großen) Wurf, die ESUG Regelungen zu verbessern und die Anforderungen der EU an ein vorinsolvenzliches Sanierungsverfahren umzusetzen.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).

On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.