The question is no longer whether the volatility created by the COVID-19 pandemic will deepen the difficulties businesses and other institutions face in the coming months, but by how much and in what ways. In the past few weeks, we have offered client mailings and webinars on COVID-19-related topics, and we will work to keep you informed of important developments as these issues evolve. Included below are updates to our recent commentary, with answers to questions we have been receiving.
Corporate
Impact of COVID-19 on M&A
The Labor and Employment Group at Hogan Lovells is proud to have contributed to the 2020 version of the firm’s Doing Business in the United States Guide. The Guide provides a high-level overview of the laws and practices important to foreign investors interested in operating in the United States, including recent legal developments.
On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. FDIC,1 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the application of the so-called “Bob Richards” rule, a judicial doctrine that was developed in the context of a bankruptcy case almost 60 years ago concerning ownership of tax refunds secured by the parent corporate entity on behalf of a bankrupt subsidiary included in a consolidated group tax return.
On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 18-1269 (U.S. 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that the so-called “Bob Richards rule” should not be used to determine which member of a group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a federal income tax refund.
A bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction was “not a final and immediately appealable order,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Dec. 10, 2019. In re Alcor Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 6716420, 4 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2019). The court declined to “exercise [its] discretion” under 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3) to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id., citing 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3926.1 (3d ed. 2017) (“There is no provision for appeal as of right from an injunction order of a bankruptcy judge to the district court.”).
A basic tenet of bankruptcy law, premised on the legal separateness of a debtor prior to filing for bankruptcy and the estate created upon a bankruptcy filing, is that prepetition debts are generally treated differently than debts incurred by the estate, which are generally treated as priority administrative expenses. However, this seemingly straightforward principle is sometimes difficult to apply in cases where a debt technically "arose" or "was incurred" prepetition, but does not became payable until sometime during the bankruptcy case. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.
Note — This post (plus many others) arrives thanks to the hard work of Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog intern extraordinaire Barrett Block, a rising 3L at UK Law.
For creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, as with many things in life, priority is everything. It is often the case that a person filing for bankruptcy has insufficient funds to pay in full all of his or her creditors. As a result, creditors try to establish their priority so they are more likely to get paid before the money runs out. Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code provides rules explaining the order in which expenses and claims have priority in bankruptcy. Notably, Section 507(a)(8) provides the IRS with priority treatment in bankruptcy with respect to claims for
Democrats now control both houses of the New York Legislature as well as the Governor’s office. A host of legislation may be in the offing. One expected piece of legislation will be passage of the Child Victim Act (CVA).
Background
Does a creditor’s good-faith belief that a discharge injunction does not apply to its debt preclude a finding of civil contempt? Due to a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide this issue.