In de uitspraak van Rechtbank Rotterdam van 3 maart 2021 is door verzoekster aan de rechtbank de vraag voorgelegd, of onderscheid in behandeling van de concurrente crediteuren (een weigeringsgrond oplevert die) aan homologatie van een akkoord in de weg zou staan.
WHOA: Alle in het 1e kwartaal van 2021 gepubliceerde rechterlijke uitspraken gebundeld Op 1 januari 2021 is de Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (“WHOA”) in werking getreden. Het eerste kwartaal na inwerkingtreding zijn 17 rechterlijke uitspraken met betrekking tot de WHOA gepubliceerd. Het insolventieteam van Ploum bestaande uit Vincent Terlouw, Suzanne van Aalst en Boaz van Honk houdt de ontwikkelingen nauwlettend in de gaten. In deze door Suzanne van Aalst opgestelde bijdrage zal de essentie van deze uitspraken worden behandeld.
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").
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.
1. What is distressed M&A?