A recent decision by the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has caused significant concerns in the restructuring community because it will severely complicate future restructurings in Germany or even make them impossible overall. In its decision dated 28 November 2016 (GrS 1/15, published on 8 February 2017) the court held that the so- called restructuring decree (circular on taxation of restructuring profits / Sanierungserlass) dated 27 March 2003 (IV A 6 S 2140 8/03, BStBl. I 2003, 240, amended by circular letter dated 22 December 2009 (IV C 9 S 4140/07/10001-01, BStBl.

In two recent decisions, both the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) and the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) concluded that certain orders entered in bankruptcy cases could not be grounds for invocation of res judicata with regard to proofs of claim that are deemed allowed. Both addressed the plain language of Section 502(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) in conjunction with relevant Bankruptcy Rules and Official Forms, and congressional intent.

On March 9, 2017, a bankruptcy court in New York became the latest to weigh in on the developing circuit court split regarding whether modification of mortgages should be permitted under 11 U.S.C.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the District Court) recently issued an opinion in the Paul Sagendorph bankruptcy case reversing the Bankruptcy Court's holding that a debtor can force a secured creditor to take title to its collateral in complete satisfaction of the creditor's secured claim.1 In reversing the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court held that the plain language of Sections 1322(b)(9) and 1325(a)(5)(C)2 does not empower a debtor to force a secured creditor to accept title to its collateral over that creditor's objection.3

In less than a week after its bankruptcy filing, a debtor was able to obtain confirmation of its prepackaged plan of reorganization in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In allowing the case to be confirmed on a compressed timeframe that was unprecedented for cases filed in the Southern District of New York, the Bankruptcy Court held that the 28-day notice period for confirmation of a chapter 11 plan could run coextensively with the period under which creditor votes on the plan were solicited prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case.

The law on debt restructurings and liability management is back to where it was. Yesterday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the controversial District Court decisions in the Marblegate-Education Management bondholder litigation. The case attracted wide-spread attention in financial markets, and we discussed it in an earlier client alert.

Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (the "TIA") states the right of a bondholder to receive payments pursuant to an indenture security cannot be "impaired or affected without the consent of such holder." Historically, issuers and bondholders have not engaged in extensive litigation based on the argument that Section 316(b) provides a broad restriction protecting bondholders' substantive right to actually receive such payments.

The European Commission has published draft legislative proposals which would require large non-EU banking firms with EU operations to establish an intermediate holding company in the EU. The proposed rules are similar to US requirements for certain non-US banking organizations to establish an intermediate holding company in the US. This note discusses the impact of the proposals on foreign banking groups and their restructuring plans, with a particular reference to US banks. It also considers the UK’s position in light of Brexit.

Introduction

On November 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision in which it held that holders of first lien notes and second lien notes of Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (together, “EFIH”) are entitled to payment of make-whole claims. In its reversal of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and Delaware District Court, the Third Circuit focused largely on the distinction that the payment in question was tied to a “redemption” of the bonds, and was not a “prepayment” premium.

CLIENT PUBLICATION FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING & INSOLVENCY | August 9, 2016 Not So Safe After All?