In its recent decision, Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.),1 the Supreme Court reiterated and expanded on the reasoning in Stern v.
Hopes that certain severance payments paid by companies to terminated employees could escape application of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax were dashed when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 25th that such payments, when not tied to state unemployment benefits, were “wages,” and thus taxable. The ruling for the government will allow the IRS to disallow protective refund claims that numerous companies filed after a federal circuit court held that termination payments were not subject to FICA tax.
In another judicial decision springing from Lehman Brothers, as a result of the likely surplus in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (LBIE) after all the provable debts have been paid, Mr Justice Richards has issued a ‘statement of conclusions’ in what is called the Waterfall Application. A more detailed judgement is expected in late March 2014. We summarise the conclusions below.
Ranking and Contributions of Shareholders of Inlimited Companies
On March 4, 2014, a unanimous United States Supreme Court decided Law v. Siegel1 and clarified that exercising statutory or inherent powers, a bankruptcy court may not contravene specific statutory authority. Law will likely have broad implications for business bankruptcy cases even though it directly involved the exercise of a bankruptcy judge’s authority under section 105(a) to create a pragmatic solution to the actions of a bad actor in a consumer bankruptcy case.
A recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has added an additional eligibility requirement for the filing of Chapter 15 cases. In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 6482499 (2d Cir.
One of the effects of commercial globalization is that the bankruptcy filing of a debtor with transnational business relationships will sometimes result in a clash between the substantive bankruptcy laws of different countries. A frequent question is whether the bankruptcy laws of a foreign country should be brought to bear upon creditors located in the United States, even where foreign bankruptcy law is at odds with the laws of the United States.
The Third Circuit in In re KB Toys, Inc.1 recently affirmed a decision of the Delaware District Court, holding that trade claims are subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code despite their subsequent sale to a third party. This case is of particular interest to investors in distressed debt.
In a decision that demonstrates the potentially broad impact of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Bellingham, the Fifth Circuit held that bankruptcy judges may not “determine” non-core matters even where the parties consent. BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. (In re BP RE, L.P.), No. 12-51270 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2013), see Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2880 (2013) (set for oral argument January 14, 2014).
Adding to the split of authority that has developed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (Aug. 21, 2013), the 7th Circuit aligned with the 6th Circuit’s decision in Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012), to hold that a party may not consent or waive objection to the limited Constitutional authority of an Article I bankruptcy court.
On April 9, 2013, Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“Ambac”) submitted a proposed settlement with the United States to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. If approved, the proposed settlement would resolve more than two years of litigation concerning the tax treatment of losses sustained by Ambac in connection with credit default swap contracts entered into during the 2008 financial crisis. The settlement would result in a payment by Ambac to the Government of $101.9 million, as well as possible future additional payments of up to $14.9 million.