The EU Decision

The EU Commission has held on January 26, 2011 that the so called restructuring privilege offered by German corporate tax law, which allows corporations in a distressed financial situation to continue to set off tax loss carry forwards against future profits even if their shareholder structure has substantially changed, is incompatible with EU State Aid provisions.

The recipients, which have applied the restructuring privilege, are now threatened with the reclaim of the tax benefits.

The English High court has approved a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Germany which had its centre of main interests in Germany, no establishment in the UK and no assets in the UK likely to be affected by the scheme.

This case is one of a number of recent cases where restructurings of foreign companies have been effected by English schemes of arrangement. The court set out its reasoning in this case in some detail in view of the possibility that the European Court of Justice would consider some of the relevant issues in a forthcoming appeal in another case.

On 26 January 2011 the European Commission declared the so-called Restructuring Clause (Sanierungsklausel) (Sec. 8c (1a) of the German Corporate Income Tax Act (CTA)) as inconsistent with EU funding guidelines. The decision of the European Commission is criticized by national experts and stresses the German economy with a hardly tolerable uncertainty as regards tax issues in restructurings.  

Bell Lines Limited (in Official Liquidation)

LK Shields Solicitors acted for the Secretary of State for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills of the Government of the United Kingdom (the Secretary of State) in a Supreme Court Appeal which raised a succinct technical point in a liquidation.  

With judgment No. 5945 of 11 March 2013, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation addressed a key issue under EC Regulation No. 1346/2000: the location of the “center of main interests” (COMI) of the company according to factors recognizable by third parties.

The Case

The case deals with the pre-pack of Estro, at the time the largest childcare provider in the Netherlands.

A pre-pack entails the court-appointed trustee confidentially preparing for the restart of trading by the insolvent company with the court's consent. If successful, the company is subsequently declared bankrupt and immediately restarted. Dutch law provides that transfer of undertaking rules do not apply in the case of bankruptcy.

Bogra is a company that is active within the funeral industry. As a result of serious financial problems, an administrator (bewindvoerder) was appointed on 28 June 2017. On the same date Bogra was declared bankrupt (30 June 2017), the employment agreements of Bogra’s employees were terminated. Funico acquired (part of) Bogra’s assets on 18 July 2017 due to an asset transaction. Effective 19 July 2017, Bogra’s activities were continued by Bogra Uitvaartkisten.

ECJ, Sixth Chamber, Judgment of 28 January 2015.

The judgment resolves the prejudicial question submitted by a Mercantile Court concerning the maintenance of workers’ rights in the event of the transfer of companies or part of them, and branches of business.

In DHL GBS (UK) Ltd v Fallimento Finmatica Spa – Butterworths Law Direct 20.2.09 the Commercial Court gave its first decision on the issues dealt with by the ECJ in the Front Comor.

Yesterday, Iceland’s Prime Minister announced that the government has decided not to bring suit against the UK authorities for the Freezing Order issued against Landsbanki by the UK authorities on October 8, 2008, on the basis of their Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act.