The District Court sustained claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and deepening insolvency asserted by the successor-in-interest to the Committee of Unsecured Creditors of DVI, a defunct company, against DVI’s former officers and directors.

Law360, New York (May 5, 2016, 12:02 PM ET) -- A core principle of bankruptcy tax litigation holds that “bankruptcy courts have universally recognized their jurisdiction to consider tax issues brought by the debtor, limited only by their discretion to abstain.” IRS v. Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 329-330 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hunt, 95 B.R. 442, 445 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1989). The Second Circuit recently departed from that generally accepted principle in United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2014).

IRS Clarifies That a Typical “Bad Boy Guarantee” Will Not Cause an Otherwise Nonrecourse Financing to Be Treated as Recourse

On April 15, 2016, the IRS released a generic legal advice memorandum (the “GLAM”)¹ providing an important and helpful clarification of the treatment of a guarantee of a partnership nonrecourse liability when the guarantee is conditioned on certain typical “nonrecourse carve-out” events (commonly referred to as “bad boy guarantees”).

New York Washington, D.C. Los Angeles Palo Alto London Paris Frankfurt Tokyo Hong Kong Beijing Melbourne Sydney www.sullcrom.com April 14, 2016 Related-Party Debt / Equity Regulations IRS Issues Proposed Regulations Intended to Limit Earnings Stripping but Which—if Finalized—Would Broadly Change the U.S. Tax Treatment of Related-Party Indebtedness SUMMARY On April 4, 2016, the IRS and Treasury Department issued proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) that would—if finalized in their current form—treat related-party debt as equity for U.S. tax purposes in certain circumstances.

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation,¹ represents a significant victory for shareholders who may get cashed out in connection with a leveraged transaction that precedes a company bankruptcy.

In a typical application of the veil piercing remedy, an equity holder is held liable for the debts of the corporate entity it owns and controls. The tests courts use for determining when the remedy is available vary, but generally veil piercing may occur only where the equity holder has abused the corporate form, by using its control over an entity to commit a fraud or other injustice.

Depending on the nature of its business, a debtor may encounter issues associated with the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), a statue designed to protect sellers of perishable produce. Recently, in Kingdom Fresh Produce, Inc. v.

1 PGDOCS\6505199.2 2015 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments Michael P. Carey Bryan Cave LLP Fourteenth Floor 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 572-6600 March 22, 2016 This paper is not intended as legal advice for any specific person or circumstance, but rather a general treatment of the topics discussed. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author only and not Bryan Cave LLP. The author would like to thank Tom Richey for his continued support, advice and assistance with this paper.

In the Ultimate Escapes bankruptcy case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the “business judgment rule” may protect fiduciaries who negotiate and enter into unconventional financing agreements in an attempt to save the company. In short, a failed business strategy by itself does not lead to liability for breach of fiduciary duty.

Midstream Companies face increased risk with financially distressed E&P companies