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.

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.  

The impact of insolvency proceedings on arbitral proceedings is becoming an increasingly important consideration for parties. Two scenarios can be generally envisioned: (i) a company files for insolvency while it is engaged in arbitral proceedings; or (ii) arbitral proceedings are initiated after insolvency proceedings have commenced. In both scenarios, the parties need to assess how the insolvency proceeding affects the arbitral proceedings. This article assesses the impact of insolvency proceedings initiated in Germany on foreign arbitral proceedings.

Following the collapse of Monarch and Air Berlin last year, the International Air Transport Association ("IATA") has suggested that bankruptcy laws should be reviewed globally in order to allow a “reasonable timeframe” for airlines to continue operating after entering insolvency to allow more passengers to complete their journeys.

Summary

On 1 July 2009, UNCITRAL adopted the Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation. The Practice Guide provides a useful reference source on some practical aspects of cooperation and communication to deal with many of the conflicts and tensions between stakeholders and jurisdictions inevitable in cross-border cases. To ease these tensions, it is often essential for creditors and, importantly, the courts concerned to reach agreement about how the process will be handled.

International context

Introduction

​I. Institutional changes

In McAteer & anor v McBrien & ors [2016] IEHC 229, the High Court made an order restricting three directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014).  The first named respondent (A) was the husband of the second named respondent (B) and father of the third named respondent (C) and all were directors of the Company on the date of the liquidation.

Background

In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.

Background 

A primary aim of the regulatory amendments included in UCITS IV was to facilitate the creation of more efficient structures within the UCITS framework.

The three key aspects of UCITS IV designed to assist in achieving this result are the new management company passport, provisions permitting the creation of master-feeder structures and the terms specifically enabling cross border fund mergers.