In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.
General Legal Background
On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the coronavirus outbreak constituted a public health emergency of international concern. The PRC and Hong Kong have been at the forefront of the coronavirus outbreak.
On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the coronavirus outbreak constituted a public health emergency of international concern. The PRC and Hong Kong have been at the forefront of the coronavirus outbreak.
The Bottom Line
In Whirlpool Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re hhgregg Inc.), Case No. 18-3363 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020), the Seventh Circuit held that a trade creditor’s later-in-time reclamation claim was subordinate to lenders’ pre-petition and debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing liens. The Seventh Circuit found that Sction 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code creates a “federal priority rule,” making clear that a reclamation claim is subordinate to prior rights of a secured creditor.
What Happened?
The Bottom Line
In an opinion dated Jan. 10, 2020, Bankruptcy Judge Craig A. Gargotta of the Western District of Texas (San Antonio Division) held that a creditor who submits a proof of claim in bankruptcy waives its right to a jury trial, regardless of whether the creditor has couched its claim in protective language purporting to reserve its right to a jury trial. See Schmidt v. AAF Players LLC (In re Legendary Field Exhibitions LLC), 19-05053 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2020).
What Happened?
Background
The Bottom Line
The UAE has pioneered a new insolvency regime for individuals or natural persons with the issuance of the stand-alone Insolvency Law No. 19 of 2019 (Insolvency Law), which has come to effect as of 30 November 2019.
The Insolvency Law is intended to provide sufficient protections to natural or civil persons who are facing financial distress and are unable to settle their debts, unlike the UAE Bankruptcy Law which regulates commercial companies and individuals considered as traders under the Commercial Transactions Code.
The Bottom Line
The United States Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 19-938 589 U.S. __ (2020), which held that a bankruptcy court’s unreserved denial of a motion for relief from the automatic stay is a final, immediately appealable order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 158.
What Happened
The UAE has pioneered a new insolvency regime for individuals or natural persons with the issuance of the stand-alone Insolvency Law No. 19 of 2019 (Insolvency Law), which has come to effect as of 30 November 2019.
The Insolvency Law is intended to provide sufficient protections to natural or civil persons who are facing financial distress and are unable to settle their debts, unlike the UAE Bankruptcy Law which regulates commercial companies and individuals considered as traders under the Commercial Transactions Code.
Introduction
In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.