In a decision rendered on June 6, 2022, Justice Sotomayor authored the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case Siegel v. Fitzgerald, holding that a statutory increase in United States Trustee’s fees violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause set forth in Article I, § 7, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”1  

On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the doctrine of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness has been described as a “narrow doctrine by which an appellate court deems it prudent for practical reasons to forbear deciding an appeal when to grant the relief requested will undermine the finality and reliability of consummated plans of reorganization.”1 By his petition, David Hargreaves—an unsecured noteholder of debtor Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc.

This article was originally published in Law360. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors' opinions only.

In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. 50509 Marine LLC et al.[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can recover an employer's defined benefit pension plan termination liability--often millions of dollars--from controlled group members that did not even exist when the contributing employer liquidated years earlier.[2]

In In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Case No. 20-2941) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020), a federal district court denied in part a motion to dismiss claims brought by the Nine West liquidating trustee against former directors (the "Defendants") of The Jones Group, Inc. (the "Company"), Nine West's predecessor, for, among other things, (i) breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. The litigation arises from the 2014 LBO of the Company by a private equity sponsor ("Buyer").

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.^[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

TAX CONTROVERSY AND LITIGATION NEWSLETTER

----------

Focus on Tax Controversy

NOVEMBER 2020\\VOLUME 4\\ISSUE 3

IN THIS ISSUE

ARTICLES AND UPDATES Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction To Resolve Tax Claims2 FAQs Issued Under The CARES Act Invalid Under The APA8 Tax Court Concludes IRS Failed to Satisfy 675111

Penalty For Failure To File Form 5471 Is Not Divisible 14 Sixth Circuit Rejects Taxpayer's Judicial Estoppel Claim17

ABOUT US Winston & Strawn's Tax Controversy and Litigation Practice 20

Editors 20

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  One of the benefits of bankruptcy court protection is the automatic stay, which will

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.1 1 Winston & Strawn’s Tax Controversy and Litigation Group litigates tax disputes in the bankruptcy courts and works in conjunction with the firm’s Bankruptcy Practice Group. Portions of this article were originally published by the author in 2008.

This article was originally published in Law360. 

During this time of economic upheaval amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, many corporate borrowers are faced with the inability to service debt obligations, and creditors may seek to hold corporate officers and directors accountable as a result. In these uncertain times, it is wise to review the fiduciary duties of corporate directors and officers and the effects of financial distress on such duties.[1] The following Q&A provides guidance on this issue from a Delaware law perspective, as Delaware is the most commonly cited jurisdiction for corporate governance.