A bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine a tax refund claim under Section 505(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code where the refund was requested by a liquidating trustee appointed pursuant to a plan, as opposed to a pre-confirmation bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Bond, Docket No. 12-4803 (2nd Cir. Aug. 13, 2014).
HR Consultancy
DURC: new system officially started
The new system of internal DURC (“Documento Unico di Regolarità Contributiva”), through which the INPS (“Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale”) ensures the regular payment of social security contributions by the employer, officially started.
These days, in fact, the companies have started to receive by certified e-mail (PEC) an invitation to stabilize any irregularity within 15 days.
Fixed term employment contract: fines replace reinstatement
HR Colsultancy
JOBS ACT - Fixed term employment contract: potential fines for those companies with 20% or more of their employees on fixed term contracts
Current proposed amendments by the Jobs Act include (i) replacing the fine for conversion of fixed term contracts exceeding the 20% limit into open-ended contracts with a fine to be paid to the employee and (ii) the clarification of the reintroduction of basic training for apprentices.
Global FDSI Briefing
Welcome to our latest quarterly briefing on legal developments across our global network. I hope you find the articles insightful and thought provoking. Highlights this quarter include recent developments in Italian derivatives case law, an overview of the amendments made to Spain’s insolvency regulation and the UK’s FCA issuing first warning notices against individuals.
If you have any questions or would like further information please do not hesitate to contact me, or one of our global key contacts.
[Matthew Allen]
Matthew Allen
Financial Services Disputes and Investigations
ECHR finds double jeopardy: Crimes sanctioned by Consob and heard by the Court of Appeal cannot be tried again in court proceedings
Hopes that certain severance payments paid by companies to terminated employees could escape application of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax were dashed when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 25th that such payments, when not tied to state unemployment benefits, were “wages,” and thus taxable. The ruling for the government will allow the IRS to disallow protective refund claims that numerous companies filed after a federal circuit court held that termination payments were not subject to FICA tax.
On March 4, 2014, a unanimous United States Supreme Court decided Law v. Siegel1 and clarified that exercising statutory or inherent powers, a bankruptcy court may not contravene specific statutory authority. Law will likely have broad implications for business bankruptcy cases even though it directly involved the exercise of a bankruptcy judge’s authority under section 105(a) to create a pragmatic solution to the actions of a bad actor in a consumer bankruptcy case.
Pillar Denton Ltd & others v Jervis & others [2014] EWCA 180 (“Game Station”)
The outcome of this appeal has been awaited with a high degree of interest. The issue was the extent to which rent should be payable as an expense of an administration or liquidation; if it is payable as an expense, it sits near the top of the priority order for the distribution of the tenant’s assets, and will usually be paid in full. Otherwise, it is among the unsecured debts, and the landlord will have to wait for whatever dividend is ultimately payable.
A recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has added an additional eligibility requirement for the filing of Chapter 15 cases. In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 6482499 (2d Cir.
One of the effects of commercial globalization is that the bankruptcy filing of a debtor with transnational business relationships will sometimes result in a clash between the substantive bankruptcy laws of different countries. A frequent question is whether the bankruptcy laws of a foreign country should be brought to bear upon creditors located in the United States, even where foreign bankruptcy law is at odds with the laws of the United States.