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.

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'.

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.

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.

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

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.

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