A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in In re Walker County Hospital Corporation serves as an important reminder to clients that are purchasing or renewing directors and officers (“D&O”) insurance coverage that the “Insured versus Insured” exclusion must contain the broadest possible exceptions for claims brought against directors and officers following a bankruptcy filing. Without the specific policy language, current and former directors and officers may be exposed to personal liability.

One common denominator links nearly all stressed businesses: tight liquidity. After the liquidity hole is identified and sized, the discussion inevitably turns to the question of who will fund the necessary capital to extend the liquidity runway. For a PE-backed business where there is a credible path to recovery, a sponsor, due to its existing equity stake, is often willing to inject additional capital into an underperforming portfolio company.

In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

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。