On October 31, 2011, the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, Bankruptcy Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, issued an opinion denying confirmation of two competing proposed plans of reorganization in the chapter 11 cases of In re Tribune Company, et al.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now weighed in on the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions. In Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., Docket Nos. 09–5122, 09–5142, 2011 WL 2536101 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals faced an issue of first impression—whether Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which shields certain payments from avoidance actions in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer’s payment to redeem its commercial paper made before maturity.

In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).

You will rely on section 355 for nonrecognition, but here you also must rely on section 332 to make the liquidations tax free, without any liquidation-reincorporation problem. It's very clear that you can get the results you want, but not clear why.

LTR 201123022 describes these facts, in simplified form:

In Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill, Ltd.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-8266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2011), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to a small, private leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction that posed no systemic risk to the stability of the financial markets.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a completely revamped version of Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to govern disclosure requirements for groups and committees that consist of or represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, as well as lawyers and other entities that represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, acting in concert to advance common interests in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

The taxpayer was able to convince the court that the creditors who got the stock in the reorganization were not the prior owners. Because the events occurred in 1992, under a prior version of the continuity of proprietary interest rules, continuity of ownership was broken and a section 338(h)(10) election could be made and the basis in the assets inside the corporation stepped up to fair market value, with no tax liability because the seller was in bankruptcy with large net operating losses (NOLs).

On December 1, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued an administrative complaint challenging Laboratory Corporation of America’s (“LabCorp”) consummated acquisition of rival Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc. (“Westcliff”). The FTC alleged that the acquisition, which was completed in June, would substantially lessen competition among providers of capitated clinical laboratory testing services to physician groups in Southern California.

On Friday, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation closed First Bank of Jacksonville, headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, and appointed the FDIC as receiver.

On Friday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency closed The First National Bank of Barnesville, headquartered in Barnesville, Georgia, and appointed the FDIC as receiver.