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.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.
Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. has appropriately drawn significant attention.