In a previous blog post from June 2022, we discussed the Tenth Circuit’s post-Sigel decision in John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC v. U.S. Trustee (In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC), 15 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2021), which held that the government must pay a refund to a Chapter 11 debtor based on what the debtor would have paid over the same time were the case in a Bankruptcy Administrator district.
The Bankruptcy Protector
On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (U.S. June 6, 2022) that the increase in fees payable to the U.S. Trustee system in 2018 violated the uniformity aspect of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution because it was not immediately applicable in the two states with Bankruptcy Administrators rather than U.S. Trustees.
In Acquisition 362 v. United States, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) again waded into the intersection of the AD/CVD law and Customs law. Specifically, the court ruled that a protest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation. This is not a novel decision, but as always in AD/CVD cases with Customs, the details are crucial.
MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v. CROCS, INC.
Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Parties challenging patents in inter partes reexamination can assign their rights to others.
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to address “[w]hether, under §365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a license agreement—which ‘constitutes a breach of such contract,’ 11 U.S.C. §365(g)—terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” The appeal arises from a First Circuit decision, Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v.
When a shipper files bankruptcy, it’s generally not good news for a motor carrier. However, motor carriers are often in a unique position that might allow them to do better than fellow creditors from other industries, recovering some or all of the unpaid pre-petition debt, while continuing to do business and get paid on a post-petition basis. Although under a bit more scrutiny since a federal circuit court decision in In re Kmart Corp., 359 F.3d 866 (7th Cir.
A recent decision provides new support for excluding a broad range of severance pay from FICA taxes—a position undercut by the taxpayer’s loss in CSX Corp. v. United States, 518 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). United States v. Quality Stores Inc., (W.D. Mich., Feb. 23, 2010), affirms a bankruptcy court’s conclusion that, contrary to Revenue Ruling 90-72, 1990-2 C.B.
2006 FICA Refund Claims Due April 15, 2010
In Acquisition 362 v. United States, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) again waded into the intersection of the AD/CVD law and Customs law. Specifically, the court ruled that a protest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation. This is not a novel decision, but as always in AD/CVD cases with Customs, the details are crucial.
In a previous blog post from June 2022, we discussed the Tenth Circuit’s post-Sigel decision in John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC v. U.S. Trustee (In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC), 15 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2021), which held that the government must pay a refund to a Chapter 11 debtor based on what the debtor would have paid over the same time were the case in a Bankruptcy Administrator district.