I have blogged several times about the difficulties of preserving non-qualified plan benefits, particularly when the plan sponsor goes bankrupt. At the time of a bankruptcy, the company's non-qualified plan becomes nothing more than an unfunded promise to pay benefits and participants usually have to get in line with the company's other creditors. The recent decision in Tate v. General Motors LLC (56 EBC 1363, 6th Cir.

On June 10th, the FDIC published the final rule establishing the criteria for determining if a company is predominantly engaged in "activities that are financial in nature or incidental thereto" for purposes of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and therefore subject to the FDIC's orderly liquidation authority.

In Sposato v. First Mariner Bank, 2013 WL 1308582 (D. Md.

To deepen government reform and improve government efficiency, the State Council of the People's Republic of China recently released the Plans for Government Institutional Reform and Function Change (the Restructuring Plan), and was approved by People’s Congress at its first session and it took effect on March 14, 2013.

In In the Matter of Castleton Plaza, LP,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a new value plan that leaves creditor claims unpaid must be subjected to a market test if the new value is contributed by an insider. The decision by the Seventh Circuit expanded the competition requirement to insiders whether or not the insider is a holder of a claim or interest against the debtor.

International structures as used by multinational companies typically could include limited partnerships or general partnerships. If the Netherlands is involved in these international structures, these partnerships may be set up in such a way that they qualify as transparent for Dutch tax purposes. Further, partnerships could be used to manage the recognition of taxable income (for example, the so called CV‐BV structures). ThisGT Alert may be helpful in further managing and controlling the tax risks within such structures.

Rejecting the formalistic approach, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in Indianapolis Downs, LLC¹ focused on the policies underlying the idea of the disclosure statement to uphold a post-petition lock-up agreement, entered into before approval of a disclosure statement, with sophisticated financial players who had access to the material information that the disclosure statement would have provided.

On February 4th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by plaintiffs, who controlled a mutual bank before it collapsed, against the FDIC as both regulator and as receiver. The Administrative Procedures Act (the "APA") claim against the FDIC as regulator, which seeks money damages and an order directing the FDIC to treat $23.6 million in subordinated debt as bank deposits, is a claim for substitute relief barred by the APA.

In a measured opinion hewing closely to standard principles of contract interpretation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 12-105, slip op. (2d Cir. Oct. 26, 2012), rejected the notion that a sovereign may issue bonds governed by New York state law and subject to the jurisdiction of the state’s courts, and then restructure those bonds in a manner that violates New York state law.