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.

After months of negotiations and conferences among key legislators, President Obama signed into law a final version of regulatory reform legislation on July 21, 2010. More than 2,000 pages long, the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (the Act) provides new legal guidelines for both “financial companies” and non-financial companies and instructs federal agencies to develop a myriad of regulations to enforce the concepts provided in the Act.

LLC members and other persons dealing with LLCs will be interested in a recent Florida Supreme Court case that was decided on June 24, 2010. The court’s decision in Olmstead v. FTC appears to eliminate part of the asset protection feature of single-member LLCs and calls into question the remedies available to creditors of members in multiple-member LLCs.

In an interesting twist on a run-of-themill case regarding the personal liability of a corporate officer for unremitted sales taxes, the New York State Division of Tax Appeals held an owner (“Petitioner”) personally liable for sales tax even though the corporation was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was being run by a bankruptcy court-approved management company. In re Eugene Dinino, Docket Nos. 822605, 822606, 822607, 822608, 822609, 822610 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App. June 24, 2010).

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that significantly restricts the scope of setoff rights for energy traders and other participants in derivatives and forward commodity markets. Traditionally, bankruptcy law has required mutuality between the debtor and a creditor as a prerequisite for the exercise of setoff rights by the creditor.

In a recent split decision, a 2-1 majority for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a debtor’s plan of reorganization that proposes a sale of assets free and clear of liens is not necessarily required to allow creditors whose loans are secured by those assets to credit bid at the sale. The majority decision in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Nos. 09-4266, 09-4349, 2010 WL 1006647 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2010), which follows a similar decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (see Bank of N.Y. Trust Co., NA v.

A hotel property derives much of its value from its operator and brand. When a hotel owner is in distress with respect to its loan obligations, the operator also plays a critical role in the resolution of the workout process between the owner and the lender. The rights and obligations of the operator contained in its agreements with the owner and the lender affect any workout decision that the parties may make.

2006 FICA Refund Claims Due April 15, 2010

As the financial crisis unfolds, the impact on U.S. financial institutions of all sizes continues to grow. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over 140 failed banks in 2009 at a cost of $27.8 billion to the Deposit Insurance Fund, a new high since the end of the savings and loan crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. For 2010, the FDIC is preparing for even more bank failures, increasing its budget by 35 percent and adding more than 1,600 to its staff.

The recently passed federal appropriations bill provides a mechanism for certain terminated auto dealers to seek relief through arbitration. If the dealer succeeds in the arbitration process, the manufacturer is required to enter into a letter of intent for a sales and service agreement with that dealer.

Auto Dealers Eligible for Arbitration