It has long been a bone of contention for landlords that tenants can simply file a notice of intention to appoint administrators in order to get an automatic moratorium against any enforcement action. This prevents a landlord from forfeiting, suing or exercising CRAR irrespective of whether the tenant goes into administration and, seemingly, whether it ever really had such an intention.

The last two months have seen two key appeals in which the court was required to decide whether the tenant of a particular type of building should enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold of a house. This right is enshrined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

The properties, and the questions for the court in each case, were quite different. What the judgments had in common was a purposive approach to interpretation of the Act.

Judge Megarry in Re Rolls Razor Limited¹, aptly describes the necessity of insolvency enquiries:

In view of the impending Solvency II Directive (Directive 2009/138/EC), which will be fully applied as of 1 January 2016, and the considerable changes associated with the directive, the (German) insurance landscape will not remain in its current state.

The UK Court of Appeal has swept aside existing rules governing when administrators have to pay advance rents falling due before their appointment.

In what will be seen as a significant victory for landlords, the Court held on 24 February 2014 that it was not open for administrators to enjoy a rent free period simply because they were appointed just after a quarter day.  The decision will have major implications for the planning and implementation of corporate insolvencies and looks set to transform the relationship between insolvency practitioners and the property industry.

Last 31 August, the Spanish Council of Ministers passed the Royal Decree-law 24/2012, on restructuring and resolution of credit entities (the "RDL 24/2012") which entered into force on such date immediately following its publication in the Spanish Official Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado).

A recent decision provides new support for excluding a broad range of severance pay from FICA taxes—a position undercut by the taxpayer’s loss in CSX Corp. v. United States, 518 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). United States v. Quality Stores Inc., (W.D. Mich., Feb. 23, 2010), affirms a bankruptcy court’s conclusion that, contrary to Revenue Ruling 90-72, 1990-2 C.B.

Wirecard's insolvency administrator has won a first victory before the Munich I Regional Court. On 5 May, the court declared the annual financial statements for 2017 and 2018, which show balance sheet profits totalling around EUR 600 million, null and void. Dividends of around EUR 47 million were distributed to Wirecard's shareholders from these profits, which probably never existed. As a consequence of the nullity of the annual accounts, the resolutions on the utilisation of the balance sheet profits are also null and void.

The High Court has dismissed an application by a landlord creditor to overturn a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) implemented by coffee shop chain Caffé Nero. The CVA, previously approved by its creditors, compromised rent arrears and reduced future rents for the company's premises. The decision follows a series of previous high-profile challenges to retail and leisure CVAs.

Doing business in the United States

2021

2

Hogan Lovells

Doing business in the United States 2021

3

Contents

Introduction1

I.Openness of U.S. markets to foreign investment

2

II.Direct or indirect market entry and choice of entity

8

III. Commercial contracting

20

IV.Labor and employment law considerations

26

V.Immigration laws

34

VI.Intellectual property laws

40

VII. Export control and economic sanction laws

46

VIII. U.S. antitrust laws

56