Recently, insolvency law was fundamentally amended in terms of reorganization procedures. The tax legislation was subsequently adapted to these new procedures, at the same time changing the content of some important tax rules.

The most important change is that a waiver of debt within the framework of a reorganization agreement becomes less interesting from a tax point of view. You will find out exactly how this works in this article.

Het insolventierecht onderging recent een grote wijziging op het gebied van de reorganisatieprocedures. De fiscale wetgeving werd vervolgens aan deze nieuwe procedures aangepast en daarbij werden tegelijk ook de inhoud van een aantal belangrijke fiscale regels gewijzigd.

De belangrijkste wijziging heeft als gevolg dat een schuldkwijtschelding binnen het kader van een reorganisatieakkoord fiscaal minder interessant wordt. Hoe dat precies zit, verneemt u in dit artikel.

Le droit de l'insolvabilité a récemment fait l'objet d'un changement majeur en ce qui concerne les procédures de réorganisation. La législation fiscale a ensuite été adaptée à ces nouvelles procédures, tout en modifiant le contenu de certaines règles fiscales importantes.

Le changement le plus important a pour conséquence qu'un apurement des dettes dans le cadre d'un accord de réorganisation devient moins intéressant du point de vue fiscal. Dans cet article, vous découvrirez comment cela fonctionne exactement.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.