Bankruptcies and restructurings involving partners and partnerships1 raise a number of unique tax issues. While the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) has provided guidance with respect to a number of these issues, a surprising number of unresolved issues remain. The first part of this outline summarizes the state of the law with respect to general tax issues that typically arise in connection with partner and partnership bankruptcies and restructurings. The balance of the outline discusses tax issues that arise under Subchapter K when troubled partnerships are reorganized. II.

Will Congress Finally Act?

This is the third in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. It covers the Commission’s recommendations about the fiduciary obligations of a Chapter 11 debtor’s directors and officers and proposed changes to typical defenses asserted to state causes of action. For copies of this or any prior articles about the Commission, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

Director and Officer Fiduciary Duties in Chapter 11

This is the second in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Select Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. It covers the Commission’s recommendations about the paying of “critical vendors” and other unsecured creditors at the very beginning of a bankruptcy case. The Commission’s recommendations are set forth below. For copies of this Alert, or the prior article about the Commission’s recommendations regarding secured lenders, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

On May 4, 2015, a unanimous United States Supreme Court in Bullard v. Blue Hills, 135 S. Ct.

Congress rarely accomplishes anything these days, but the need to reform Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code seems to have “crossed over the aisle.” When the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 1978, America boasted the world’s dominant manufacturing economy. Corporate debt was mostly unsecured trade debt. Secured loans provided tangible asset financing for property, plant, and equipment.

Following huge trading losses and the discovery of alleged fraud in a Singaporean subsidiary, O.W. Bunker & Trading A.S. filed for bankruptcy on 7 November 2014in the Danish court, just seven months after the company floated on the stock market.  Since then, a number of other O.W. Bunker Danish and overseas entities have also filed for bankruptcy.

On March 16, 2015, the Spanish subsidiary of Banca Privada d’Andorra, Banco de Madrid, sought bankruptcy protection in the midst of a run on the bank by depositors. The run and bankruptcy were the result of FinCEN’s March 10, 2015, announcement that it would bar U.S. banks from providing correspondent banking services to Banca Privada d’Andorra or any bank that processes transactions for Banca Privada d’Andorra.

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an important, 28-page opinion that confirmed a jury verdict, holding former officers and directors of a not-for-profit health care provider in bankruptcy, jointly and severally liable to the facility’s creditors – in the amount of $2.25 million – for breach of fiduciary duty in failing to properly oversee and manage the non-profit entity.  Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors ex rel. Lemington Home for Aged v. Baldwin (In re Lemington Home for Aged), No.

On February 6, 2015, Judge Francisco Besosa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held that the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (the “Recovery Act”) is expressly preempted by section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code and is therefore unconstitutional.

On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition for en banc review of the Second Circuit’s September 2014 panel decision holding that bankruptcy courts are required to review the propriety of a Chapter 15 debtor’s transfers of property interests within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., even if such a transfer has already been approved in the debtor’s foreign proceeding.  This decision represents a departure from prior cases, in which U.S.