In Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1956 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that bankruptcy debtors were required by due process to provide more prominent notice of a case filing than they did, such that the notice might have been seen by unknown creditors with claims to assert.

Bankruptcy courts lack the power to impose serious punitive sanctions, a federal district judge ruled recently in PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Sensenich, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207801 (D. Vt. Dec. 18, 2018). Judge Geoffrey Crawford reversed a bankruptcy judge’s ruling that had imposed sanctions against a creditor based on Rule 3002.1(i) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority, and Bankruptcy Code section 105.

On November 9, responding to a request from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Solicitor General filed a brief at the Court recommending that the petition for writ of certiorari in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-11911, be granted. The petition, seeking review of a unanimous panel decision of the Eleventh Circuit, presents the question of “whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a ‘statement respecting the debtor's . . .

La Ley 27/2014, de 27 de noviembre, del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (“LIS”), aplicable a los periodos impositivos iniciados a partir del 1 de enero del 2015 introdujo importantes novedades en relación con el régimen especial de neutralidad fiscal aplicable a las operaciones de reestructuración (“Régimen Especial”).

Entre otras, el Régimen Especial ha quedado configurado como el régimen aplicable por defecto a estas operaciones, no siendo necesario optar por su aplicación (sin perjuicio de la obligación de comunicar la realización de la operación a la Administración Tributaria).