A bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine a tax refund claim under Section 505(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code where the refund was requested by a liquidating trustee appointed pursuant to a plan, as opposed to a pre-confirmation bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Bond, Docket No. 12-4803 (2nd Cir. Aug. 13, 2014).

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 25^th 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.

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.

On January 17, 2014 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a ruling in Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 13-13087 (KG), which highlights potential risks to both secured creditors and purchasers of claims in bankruptcy section 363 sales. The facts in Fisker are straightforward. Fisker was founded in 2007 to make high-end electric cars and was financed principally with federal and state government loans secured by some, but not all, of Fisker’s assets.

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. 

In In re KB Toys,¹ a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a claim that is disallowable under § 502(d)² if held by the original claimant is also disallowable in the hands of a purchaser or subsequent transferee. In other words, if a creditor sells or assigns its claim to a claims trader and the creditor later becomes liable on a preference or fraudulent transfer,³ the claim may be disallowed in the hands of the claims trader if the creditor fails to pay the amount it owes to the estate.

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).

An employer that sponsors a single-employer defined benefit pension plan was acquired by a Japanese parent.  The employer entered into bankruptcy and, as part of the proceedings, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) terminated the pension plan.  The PBGC then sought in federal court to recover the amount of the unfunded liability from the Japanese parent.  The PBGC also sought payment of the termination premium designed to be payable when a reorganizing company emerges from bankruptcy and to collect that premium from the parent.  The pare

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.