Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?

This article was originally published in Law360. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors' opinions only.

In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. 50509 Marine LLC et al.[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can recover an employer's defined benefit pension plan termination liability--often millions of dollars--from controlled group members that did not even exist when the contributing employer liquidated years earlier.[2]

In In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Case No. 20-2941) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020), a federal district court denied in part a motion to dismiss claims brought by the Nine West liquidating trustee against former directors (the "Defendants") of The Jones Group, Inc. (the "Company"), Nine West's predecessor, for, among other things, (i) breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. The litigation arises from the 2014 LBO of the Company by a private equity sponsor ("Buyer").

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.^[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

TAX CONTROVERSY AND LITIGATION NEWSLETTER

----------

Focus on Tax Controversy

NOVEMBER 2020\\VOLUME 4\\ISSUE 3

IN THIS ISSUE

ARTICLES AND UPDATES Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction To Resolve Tax Claims2 FAQs Issued Under The CARES Act Invalid Under The APA8 Tax Court Concludes IRS Failed to Satisfy 675111

Penalty For Failure To File Form 5471 Is Not Divisible 14 Sixth Circuit Rejects Taxpayer's Judicial Estoppel Claim17

ABOUT US Winston & Strawn's Tax Controversy and Litigation Practice 20

Editors 20

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  One of the benefits of bankruptcy court protection is the automatic stay, which will

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.1 1 Winston & Strawn’s Tax Controversy and Litigation Group litigates tax disputes in the bankruptcy courts and works in conjunction with the firm’s Bankruptcy Practice Group. Portions of this article were originally published by the author in 2008.

2020年の初めに新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）パンデミックが広がり始めてから、その拡散を抑えるために全米の州知事が事業の閉鎖を命じる行政命令を出しました。多くの事業主が、事業閉鎖期間の賃料の支払義務から逃れるための救済手段を探ろうとして賃貸借契約書、特にその不可抗力(force majeure)条項を調べました。事業体やその弁護士は、今まで経験したことのない性質のパンデミックと相次ぐ事業閉鎖を目の当たりにしていますが、そのような重要事項の指針となる判例はわずかしかありませんでした。しかし、イリノイ州J.B.プリツカー知事がCOVID-19危機の対応策として、レストランに対して同施設で食事をする客に料理を出す(on-premises consumption)ことを禁じる行政命令を出した結果1、 Hitz Restaurant Group事件において、イリノイ州北部地区連邦破産裁判所は、近時、賃貸借契約書に含まれる不可抗力条項に基づき、テナント（賃借人）‐債務者の賃料支払義務は一部免除されると判示しました。