Do officers of a public corporation have an affirmative obligation to monitor corporate affairs? Yes, according to Judge Walsh in his recently issued memorandum opinion in Miller v. McDonald (In re World Health Alternatives, Inc.).1 Although "Caremark" oversight liability had previously generally only been imposed on directors of public corporations, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware determined that officers are not immune from such liability as a matter of law.

With the latest wave of bankruptcies sweeping the aviation and airline industries, you will find bankers and lawyers sweating over the priority and perfection of their aircraft liens. These bankruptcies seem to have a different character when contrasted with the bankruptcies of 2002 through 2004. Many of the 2008 bankruptcies are operational shut-downs and liquidations rather than restructurings. That means that the status of creditors (as secured or unsecured) is going to become acutely relevant and will determine how much the bankruptcy affects the creditor's financial outcome.

I. INTRODUCTION

Bankruptcies and restructurings involving partners and partnerships1 raise a number of unique tax issues. While the IRS has provided guidance with respect to a number of these issues, a surprising number of unresolved issues remain. The first part of this outline summarizes the state of the law with respect to general tax issues that typically arise in connection with partner and partnership bankruptcies and restructurings. The balance of the outline discusses tax issues that arise under Subchapter K when troubled partnerships are reorganized.

On Friday, November 14, 2008, the Executive Office for United States Trustees ("EOUST") issued for public comment a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth procedures and criteria U.S. Trustees will use when considering applicants seeking to become approved providers of a personal financial management instructional course (the "Proposed Rule"). Comments are due by January 13, 2009.

Summary of Key Aspects of the Proposed Rule

The Friday, October 10, 2008, edition of The State newspaper (Columbia, South Carolina) carried an article about the possible Wells Fargo-Wachovia merger. The article stated the merger could cause “major job cuts.” In an economic downturn such as the current one, employees are going to suffer job losses. Any employment attorney will tell you that will result in more employment-related lawsuits being filed by former employees against their former employers. Any bankruptcy attorney will tell you that will result in increased bankruptcy filings.

Given the current state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that business related bankruptcy filings increased 41.6 percent and non-business bankruptcies increased 28.4 percent between June 30, 2007, and June 30, 2008, with more than one million Americans filing for bankruptcy during calendar year 2007, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer does not recognize gain or loss on the exchange of like-kind property. Before 1984, the Code did not specifically address so-called deferred exchanges - exchanges in which the taxpayer relinquished property and some time later received the replacement property - although at least one leading case did. The 1984 rules require that the taxpayer identify the replacement property within 45 days after the disposition and close on the replacement property and close within 180 days after the disposition.

On June 17, 2009, the Seventh Circuit examined the tax practitioner privilege in Valero Energy Corporation v. U.S., 103 AFTR 2d 2009-2683. Valero, a large oil refiner, expanded its operations in 2001 by acquiring Ultra Diamond Shamrock Corporation (“UDS”). Prior to the acquisition, Ernst & Young developed a restructuring and refinancing plan for UDS’s Canadian subsidiaries. Valero asked its tax advisors, Arthur Anderson, to review the plan and provide additional tax advice.

There is something for everyone in the suitably named Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009–including potential recoveries for unsecured creditors of a debtor reorganizing or liquidating pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Background

Introduction

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled recently on the validity of “gift plans” – plans of reorganization under which a senior creditor “gifts” assets to a junior creditor or equity holder.1 In In re Journal Register Co.,2 Bankruptcy Judge Alan L. Gropper approved a plan in which secured lenders gifted a portion of their recovery to certain trade creditors, and detailed some of the important limitations on gift plans.

Evolution of the Gift Plan Doctrine