As revealed in a recent bankruptcy case, purchasers of contaminated property need to have a very clear understanding of their contractual remedies before proceeding with self-help. The case (In re Evans Industries, Inc., No.

In a decision that may create serious problems for bankruptcy case administration, the Supreme Court this morning invalidated part of the Bankruptcy Court jurisdictional scheme. Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179, 564 U.S. ___ (June 23, 2011). Specifically, the Court held that the Bankruptcy Courts cannot issue final judgments on garden variety state law claims that are asserted as counterclaims by the debtor or trustee against creditors who have filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy case.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amended Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”). Rule 2019 governs disclosure requirements for groups and committees that consist of or represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, as well as lawyers and other entities that represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, acting in concert in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

《国家税务总局关于纳税人资产重组有关增值税问题的公告》(02/18/2011)

The State Administration of Taxation released the Announcement onIssues Concerning Value-Added Tax Relevant to Taxpayers’ Assets Restructuring (the “VAT Announcement”) on February 18, 2011. The effective date of the Announcement is March 1, 2011.

Tribal economies are not immune to the recent global financial crisis and economic downturn. The Indian gaming industry was hit especially hard. After consistent year-over-year growth in tribal gaming revenues during the 1990s and continuing through 2008, industry revenues declined in 2009 and have continued to stagnate. Amid reports of several tribal casino defaults—and many more tribes with significant debt maturing in the near future that will need to be restructured—tribes and creditors must consider two questions: Are tribes and their corporations eligible for bankruptcy?

In a recent 113-page decision, Judge Alan S. Gold of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida quashed the TOUSA Bankruptcy Court’s previous controversial fraudulent conveyance decision that required secured lenders (the "Transeastern Lenders") to disgorge approximately $480 million received in settlement of their claims against TOUSA.

On February 7, 2011, in In re DBSD North America, Inc.,1 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its opinion joining the Third Circuit in condemning socalled “gifting plans,” thus deepening the perceived circuit split with the First Circuit which has been interpreted as approving of gifting plans. In so doing, the Second Circuit relied on the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. 203 N. LaSalle St. P’ship2 and Norwest Bank Worthington v.

The current "Great Recession," which began in late 2007 with a maelstrom in the debt capital markets, has necessitated a rethinking of the federal income tax rules governing debt restructurings. The harsh rules2 promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in reaction to the 1991 taxpayer-favorable decision in Cottage Savings v. Commissioner,3 have been inhibiting restructurings. Instead, rules that did not trigger adverse tax results have been needed to induce lenders and borrowers to restructure obligations that can no longer be paid according to their terms.

On October 21, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on certified questions in two cases: Kirschner v. KPMG LLP ("Kirschner"), certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("Teachers' Retirement"), certified by the Delaware Supreme Court, reiterating and strengthening the in pari delicto defense.

In the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2010] All ER (D) 358 (Jul), the English Court of Appeal, Civil Division, determined that a U.S. bankruptcy court’s monetary default judgment obtained against Eurofinance and its principals, British citizens, was enforceable. In doing so, the Court of Appeal favored a “universal” approach to international bankruptcy cases and recognized adversary proceedings as part and parcel of the main bankruptcy case under American bankruptcy rules.