Employees who sue their employers must disclose that lawsuit if they file for bankruptcy—right? Maybe not. In Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Eleventh Circuit overruled prior precedent and impaired a valuable defense for early dismissal or settlement with bankrupt plaintiffs. This decision will affect strategy for employers that face litigation from bankrupt plaintiffs.

Legal Background

Some bankruptcy experts predict an increase in business failures for government contractors in the coming years. Increased demands and constraints on government spending will stress both prime contractors and subcontractors. As federal regulations generally place the burden of compliance on prime contractors, a financially distressed subcontractor is a concern not only for the sub, but also for the prime contractor.

A sub’s financial problems jeopardize the sub’s ability to perform its subcontract and, thus, pose serious threats to a prime contractor, including:

On June 26, 2017, the recast EU regulation on insolvency proceedings1 (the Recast Insolvency Regulation) came into force.

Existing Legislation

After several years of drafting, debate, compromise and fine tuning, it appears that major changes to the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases are imminent. On April 27, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts submitted to Congress amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that will have a profound impact on consumer bankruptcy cases.

The new Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (SI 2016/1024) came into force on April 6, 2017 (the 2016 Rules). The 2016 Rules replace the Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986/1925) and their 28 subsequent amendments (the 1986 Rules) and represent a continuation of the Insolvency Service’s recent efforts to modernize and implement policy changes under various pieces of primary legislation.

On January 17, 2017, a divided (2-1) panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) reversed the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District) in the Marblegate litigation1 (Marblegate) with respect to the interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA).

On Dec. 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp, No. 15-659. (S. Ct. argued Dec.

On Tuesday, Sept. 13, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for public comment (the Proposed Rule) introducing a regulatory regime to govern the receivership of national banks that are not insured (uninsured banks) by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). See OCC, Receiverships for Uninsured National Banks, 81 Fed. Reg. 62,835, 62,835 (Sept. 13, 2016) (the Proposed Rule).

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified the type of injury that must be alleged by a plaintiff suing under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision, in Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., is the first from the Eleventh Circuit applying the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Spokeo v. Robins.

On June 10, 2016, the Treasury Department (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) issued final regulations on the federal income tax treatment of discharge of debt issued by disregarded entities (e.g., single member LLCs) and grantor trusts (e.g., investment trusts). Under the regulations, the exemption of cancellation of debt income of taxpayers that are insolvent or in a Title 11 case (bankruptcy) only applies if the owner of the disregarded entity or grantor trust is insolvent or is a debtor in a bankruptcy case.