Recently, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) each issued rules related to different aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act. The FDIC published in the Federal Register an interim final rule clarifying how it will treat certain creditor claims under the new orderly liquidation authority (OLA) granted under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Business structures are often reorganized to assist in isolating liabilities, support discrete product brands and address favorable tax environments. However, in certain fact situations, unintended Tennessee excise tax consequences can result from certain reorganizations. Such was the outcome of the Tennessee Supreme Court's recent decision in Blue Bell Creameries, LP v. Richard Roberts, Commissioner of Revenue, published January 24, 2011.

The Holding

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued rulings regarding the availability of tax losses after a bankruptcy,1 the ability to take a loss under Sections 165(a) and 165(g),2 and the characterization of a loss after an ownership change.3 There are few rulings or other sources of authority for these types of issues, and thus, a review of these rulings provides insight into the IRS’s current thinking on the issues addressed.

PLR 201051020

© 2011 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. in the Vol. 5, No. 13 edition of the Bloomberg Law Reports—Bankruptcy Law. Reprinted with permission. Bloomberg Law Reports® is a registered trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P.

In PLR 201051019 (12/23/2010), the Service ruled that in computing a consolidated group’s §382 limitation after filing for bankruptcy relief, all of its outstanding liabilities before the ownership change should be taken into account at the adjusted issue price, regardless of whether the obligations were subsequently discharged in whole or in part during the recognition period.

In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.

Over the past five years, courts have issued rulings of potential concern to buyers of distressed debt. Courts have addressed, among other things, “loan to own” acquisition strategies resulting in vote designation; equitable subordination, disallowance, and other lender liability exposure based upon the claim seller’s misconduct; disclosure requirements for ad hoc committees of debtholders; the adequacy of standardized claims-trading agreements; and claim-filing requirements in the era of computerized records.

You will rely on section 355 for nonrecognition, but here you also must rely on section 332 to make the liquidations tax free, without any liquidation-reincorporation problem. It's very clear that you can get the results you want, but not clear why.

LTR 201123022 describes these facts, in simplified form:

In a move signaling the end of 6 years of litigation, the bankruptcy trustee for the holding company of failed mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”) negotiated a settlement agreement with the FDIC regarding the ownership of nearly $60 million of tax refunds.  If approved by the bankruptcy court, the settlement would resolve one of the most highly publicized tax refund disputes involving the FDIC, a number of which arose in the wake of 2008’s financial crisis.

The United States District Court in Delaware recently issued a welcome decision for private equity firms whose portfolio companies run afoul of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”).  In In re Jevic Holding Corp. (PDF), the Court affirmed a bankruptcy court decision holding that Sun Capital Partners (“Sun”) was not liable for the WARN Act violations of Jevic Transportation Inc.