Introduction
In Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In re Oneida Ltd.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed whether a premium payment created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“DRA”)2 for pension plans terminated as part of a chapter 11 restructuring is a pre-petition claim or a post-petition administrative expense. The Court held that the statutorily mandated premium payment was a contingent pre-petition claim and was discharged upon confirmation of the debtor’s plan.
In a recent decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brunt, Adv. Proc. No. 07-51602 (Bankr. D. Del.
On August 26, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a state-court judgment that modifies a discharge order is void ab initio.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a nondischargeable debt for malicious and willful injury must include proof of tortious conduct. An intentional breach of contract does not suffice.
With the country officially in a recession and the lack of available refinancing options continuing, more and more businesses are faced with the realities of foreclosure. While foreclosure often allows a business to wipe the debt slate clean with respect to the foreclosed property, it can also create unintended tax consequences as well as tax planning opportunities.
Recourse v. Non-Recourse Debt
One of the most significant tax provisions contained in the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) might prove helpful to certain taxpayers looking to restructure their balance sheets.
Companies that terminate pension plans before filing for bankruptcy may no longer escape paying significant claims to the PBGC.
In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. Oneida, Ltd. dated April 8, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York characterizing certain “termination premiums” owed to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) pursuant to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 as contingent, pre-petition claims and thus dischargeable in bankruptcy.
On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).
A known creditor, which was aware of a debtor’s pending bankruptcy but did not receive legally required notice of the debtor’s chapter 11 case, was not barred from bringing a state action following bankruptcy discharge.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that actual knowledge of the pending chapter 11 case did not satisfy due process requirements; therefore, the known creditor’s subsequent claim was not barred by the debtor’s discharge injunction. Arch Wireless, Inc. v. Nationwide Paging, Inc. (In re Arch Wireless, Inc.), 534 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008).
Debt-for-debt exchanges are not new, but are worth revisiting given the current economic climate. Furthermore, the recently enacted "Stimulus Act"1 provides some temporary relief to debtors from potentially harsh tax consequences of restructuring. The following discussion is relevant to issuers (also referred to as debtors) or holders (also referred to as creditors) of debt who are "US persons" (as defined in the US Internal Revenue Code).2
In order to illustrate some of the key US federal income tax consequences of a debt-for-debt exchange, consider the following example: