The First-tier Tribunal has issued its decision in the case ofM Gilbert (t/a United Foods) v HMRC, one of the first cases concerning a claim for entrepreneurs' relief to reach the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal was asked to decide whether a taxpayer had disposed of part of his business or, as HMRC argued, simply sold some of the assets used to carry on the business.

In a case of first impression that has important implications for parties who acquire intellectual property rights under international license agreements, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the protections of Section 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code applied to licensees of U.S. patents in a Chapter 15 case, despite the fact that those protection were not available under the foreign law applicable to the foreign debtor.  In re Qimonda AG, Case No. 09-14766 (Bankr. E.D. Va., Oct. 28, 2011) (Mitchell, Bankruptcy J.).

Employee rights issues arising from M&A transactions in Germany can be difficult to navigate.  Compared to the United States and most other regions, Germany has a high level of employee protection, resulting from a number of statutes which put multiple layers of protection over an employment relationship.  While employee rights issues arising from M&A transactions in Germany may be difficult to oversee, they rarely deter companies from pursuing a transaction; however, employee issues play a major role in most acquisitions and carve out situations, so understanding the nuan

Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.

The Internal Revenue Service’s recently issued general legal advice memorandum (GLAM) should provide beneficial results to certain taxpayers that use a check-the-box election to convert an insolvent foreign corporation into a partnership.

Overview

The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

Recently, the Third Circuit held that withdrawal liability triggered after a bankruptcy filing date may be apportioned to pre- and post-petition service for the debtor, and that the withdrawal liability attributable to post-petition service may be entitled to priority over general unsecured claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  Employers that participate in a multiemployer pension plan should determine the claims impact of withdrawal in light of this court decision and also assess whether filing for bankruptcy protection outside of the Third Circuit is appropriate.  

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".

Considering the fate to befall certain trademarks upon an owner’s bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court determined that a trademark license is not assignable without the owner’s express permission or in the absence of a clause explicitly authorizing assignment and a trademark license cannot be implied from a contract for services.  In re XMH Corp., Case No. 10-2596 (7th Cir. August 2, 2011) (Posner, J.).