Die Unsicherheit, die von einer weltweiten Ausbreitung des neuartigen Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2 ausgeht, hat längst die deutsche Wirtschaft erreicht.

Für viele Branchen hat sich das Geschäftsklima massiv eingetrübt. Selbst wenn staatliche Hilfen ausgezahlt werden wird man sich besser früher als später ernsthafte Überlegungen zu einer umfassenden Restrukturierung machen müssen. Ein hilfreicher Weg ist die Sanierung durch Planverfahren, oft verbunden mit Schutzschirm oder sonstiger Eigenverwaltung.

Die wesentlichen Vorzüge auf einen Blick:

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to shake global markets, it is likely that more companies will need to restructure to address liquidity constraints, to right-size their balance sheets, or to implement operational restructurings. In addition to a potential surge in restructurings, the spread of COVID-19 is already having pronounced impacts on companies planning or pursuing restructurings, and further market turmoil may cause even broader changes to the restructuring marketplace.

Potential Increase in Restructuring Activity

Am 16. Juli 2019 ist die Richtlinie (EU) 2019/1023 über präventive Restrukturierungsrahmen in Kraft getreten. Ihre Umsetzung in das nationale Recht der Mitgliedstaaten wird von Sanierungsspezialisten vor dem Hintergrund sinkender Wachstumsprognosen und Warnungen vor einem Wirtschaftseinbruch mit Spannung erwartet.

The Preventive Restructuring Frameworks Directive (EU) 2019/1023 is finally in force. Following its implementation into EU member states’ national law, the directive will hopefully prove an effective tool for Europe’s restructuring practitioners, just as the continent’s economic outlook darkens.

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”

In a recent decision arising out of the Republic Airways bankruptcy, Judge Sean Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the liquidated damages provisions of certain aircraft leases were improper penalties and, thus, “unenforceable as against public policy” under Article 2A the New York Uniform Commercial Code. In re Republic Airways Holdings Inc., 2019 WL 630336 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019).

On February 8, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order enjoining a claimant from pursuing claims against a debtor’s non-debtor affiliates based upon third-party release and injunction provisions included in the debtor’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. In re CJ Holding Co., 2019 WL 497728 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019).

Recently the German legislature passed a new law, exempting extraordinary profits created by the waiver of claims under restructurings from income tax liability. The amendment was necessary because the German Federal Tax Court had previously held the original administrative decree (which in a conceptually different manner avoided the tax burden on such profits) unlawful. This article gives a brief overview over the legislative history and the practical consequences of the amendment.

1. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

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).