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.

A California federal district court granted temporary injunctive relief, requiring the purchaser of a bankrupt hospital to temporarily recognize and bargain with the union that represented nurses employed by the hospital’s seller, pending the outcome of a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) hearing.

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.

Published in The Deal, January 5, 2011

The recent decision in Bank of America, NA v. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et. al.), No. 08-13555, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01753, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3867 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010) has shone a 10,000-watt spotlight onto the scope of common law set-off in New York.

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 8, 2010, the FDIC approved a Proposed Rule that would implement certain provisions of its authority granted by Congress in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title II”) to act as receiver for covered financial companies (failing financial companies that pose significant risks to the financial stability of the United States) when a Bankruptcy Code proceeding is found to be inappropriate. Prior to the enactment of the Dodd‑Frank Act on July 21, 2010, no unified statutory scheme for the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies existed.

The judge presiding over the bankruptcy proceeding of the operator of a Web site and magazine aimed at gay teens has approved a settlement allowing the destruction of personal information of users rather than a sale to creditors as part of the bankruptcy estate. The court approved the settlement after the Federal Trade Commission raised objections to the sale, citing the Web site sign-up confirmation page, which stated that "[w]e never give your info to anybody," and a similar statement directed to subscribers of an associated print magazine.

In re Visteon Corp., No. 10-1944-cv, 2010 WL 2735715 (3d Cir. July 13, 2010), the Third Circuit held that Visteon Corporation (Visteon) could not terminate unvested retiree health and life insurance benefits during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without seeking court approval pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1114, 11 U.S.C. § 1114. The Third Circuit’s decision departs from the rulings of many other federal courts, and is in tension, if not outright conflict, with the Second Circuit’s decision in LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 945 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.

Expect the unexpected from your Web site privacy policy. In a handful of cases, including two which were recently decided, companies have been thwarted in various, unexpected ways by the commitments made in their online privacy policies.

Are your intellectual property litigators reading your privacy policy?