Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

On October 8, 2016, China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) published the Provisional Administrative Rules on Foreign-Invested Enterprises’ Establishment and Amendment(《外商投资企业设立及变更备案管理暂行办法》), effective immediately.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in GM Cases Casts a Shadow Over Whether Section 363 Sale Orders Insulate Buyers from Debtors’ Product Liability Claims.

In an earlier blog piece we reported on the Third Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp. where the Court approved a settlement, implemented through a structured dismissal, which allowed junior creditors to receive a distribution prior to senior creditors being paid in full.

I. Introduction

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trustputs an end to one of Puerto Rico’s multi-pronged efforts to deleverage itself.

On May 3, 2016 the Italian government approved Law Decree No. 59 (the “Decree”) which, inter alia, provides for new types of security and introduces streamlined in-court and out-of-court enforcement procedures. In addition, the Decree mandates the setting up of a centralized electronic register for security enforcement proceedings and insolvency and pre-insolvency restructuring proceedings. The Decree aims to facilitate financings and secondary debt transactions by reinforcing creditors’ rights and providing more flexible instruments to lenders and borrowers.

On April 15, 2016, the IRS released a generic legal advice memorandum (GLAM 2016-001) (the “April GLAM”) addressing the impact of so-called “bad boy” guarantees (also known as nonrecourse carve-out guarantees) on the characterization of underlying partnership debt as recourse vs. nonrecourse under Section 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Lease Assignment and Guarantees: Case Update and Recap

Summary