This article was originally published in Law360. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors' opinions only.

In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. 50509 Marine LLC et al.[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can recover an employer's defined benefit pension plan termination liability--often millions of dollars--from controlled group members that did not even exist when the contributing employer liquidated years earlier.[2]

In In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Case No. 20-2941) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020), a federal district court denied in part a motion to dismiss claims brought by the Nine West liquidating trustee against former directors (the "Defendants") of The Jones Group, Inc. (the "Company"), Nine West's predecessor, for, among other things, (i) breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. The litigation arises from the 2014 LBO of the Company by a private equity sponsor ("Buyer").

Part 1: termination rights

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) introduces important changes to the operation of cross-border insolvency regulations and impacts more broadly on the potential remedies available in the maritime sector to recover debts. In this two-part series, we consider first CIGA 2020, the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and termination rights, and in the second part, we review CIGA 2020, liens and set-off claims.

Has COVID-19 encouraged you to reconsider your outsourcing needs? If so, it might be time to quarantine your outsourcing agreements and give them a health check. Below we have tracked-and-traced a list of considerations to help you to isolate any potential areas in those agreements that may need sanitising.

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.^[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

TAX CONTROVERSY AND LITIGATION NEWSLETTER

----------

Focus on Tax Controversy

NOVEMBER 2020\\VOLUME 4\\ISSUE 3

IN THIS ISSUE

ARTICLES AND UPDATES Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction To Resolve Tax Claims2 FAQs Issued Under The CARES Act Invalid Under The APA8 Tax Court Concludes IRS Failed to Satisfy 675111

Penalty For Failure To File Form 5471 Is Not Divisible 14 Sixth Circuit Rejects Taxpayer's Judicial Estoppel Claim17

ABOUT US Winston & Strawn's Tax Controversy and Litigation Practice 20

Editors 20

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  One of the benefits of bankruptcy court protection is the automatic stay, which will

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.1 1 Winston & Strawn’s Tax Controversy and Litigation Group litigates tax disputes in the bankruptcy courts and works in conjunction with the firm’s Bankruptcy Practice Group. Portions of this article were originally published by the author in 2008.

As part of the legislative changes brought about by the Finance Act 2020, the Treasury drafted the Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) and laid these before parliament on 14 September 2020. View a copy of the regulations.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) received royal assent on 25 June 2020 and is now in force.