Today, thanks to the high-cost of current court fees, small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face the problem of not getting paid by a customer and then, subsequently, not being able to go to court to get paid.

On 6 April 2017, the Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force. The new rules aim to modernise the insolvency process; and make it more efficient. Physical meetings, as the default decision making process, have been abolished. Where the debtor ‘customarily’ communicated with a creditor by way of email notices can be served by email under deemed consent, rather than through the post. The rules also introduce the use of websites to publish notices, without the need to inform creditors of any postings.

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.

When someone is made bankrupt, all property owned by them, at the date of bankruptcy, forms part of the bankruptcy estate. Property not only includes physical assets, such as goods, land and money, but also intangible assets, such as a cash balance with a bank, debts, benefits under contracts, legacies and causes of action. These assets are known as ‘things in action’. The bankruptcy estate vests in a trustee in bankruptcy upon appointment.

How can I protect my company from cash flow problems due to outstanding payments?

It is well worth keeping a close eye on your customers to spot any early signs of financial distress and act quickly.

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.

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

In May 2015, I wrote an article about the conflicting lower court decisions in Raithatha –v- Williamson and Horton –v- Henry, concerning undrawn pension entitlements and income payment orders. The Court of Appeal has now finally handed down its long expected Judgment.

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.