The court’s sanction of DTEK's latest scheme includes novel references to its outstanding bank debt and helpfully rules on the controversial 'domicile test'.

In the case of Susan G. Brown v. Douglas Ellmann [1], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision to deny a Chapter 7 debtor’s proposed exemptions for the value of redemption rights she enjoyed under Michigan law related to the sale of a property she surrendered to the bankruptcy estate.

Background

On March 29, 2017, the United Kingdom (UK) delivered notice of its withdrawal from the European Union (EU), triggering the most comprehensive legislative review and revision ever to occur in the UK. This update discusses legislative changes that might affect structured finance. Changes in Law Upon the UK’s withdrawal, EU treaties, directives, directly effective decisions and regulations, and rulings of the European Court of Justice will cease to apply to the UK unless their effect is specifically preserved by English law.

To date, a debt waiver has been frequently used as a tool to successfully restructure German-based companies in financial difficulties.

To date, a debt waiver has been frequently used as a tool to successfully restructure German based companies in financial difficulties. A decision of the German Federal Fiscal Court (Bundesfinanzhof) published on February 8, 2017 currently limits such an option, given that it held that one of the main instruments used by tax authorities to grant relief from an otherwise taxable cancellation of debt income (CODI) in the form of the so-called Restructuring Decree (Sanierungserlass) violates fundamental constitutional rights.

In Akers (and others) v. Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed the limited nature of British insolvency officer-holders’ ability to void dispositions of a company’s assets held on trust. The Supreme Court also highlighted the potential dangers inherent in holding on trust assets located in jurisdictions which do not recognise common law trusts.

Second Circuit’s reversal of controversial restructuring decision may boost confidence among distressed bond issuers.

The decision provides some additional, though limited protection for licensees of trademarks in bankruptcy proceedings

Introduction

In In re Tempnology LLC,1 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the BAP) for the First Circuit provided additional clarity regarding the rights of intellectual property licensees under section 365(n) of the United States Bankruptcy Code,2 particularly with respect to trademark licenses. In Tempnology, the First Circuit BAP concluded that:

Section 365(n) extends only to licenses of "intellectual property" as defined in the Bankruptcy Code,3

Many bankruptcy cases involve adversary proceedings in which creditors seek to have certain debts deemed nondischargeable. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) recently considered, on appeal, whether the Bankruptcy Court properly held that a debt owed by a debtor (the “Debtor”) to the State of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (the “Agency”) is dischargeable in a Chapter 13 case.1

With a new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that has become effective on 1 December 2016, India seeks to expedite the process for creditors seeking payment or foreclosure through the courts.