Earlier this month Alfred T Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee for National Wholesale Liquidators, began filing various complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of alleged preferential transfers. On November 19, 2008, I wrote on this blog about the commencement of the National Wholesale Liquidators ("NWL") bankruptcy (read my prior post concerning NWL here). As indicated in the prior post, NWL filed for bankruptcy with an agreement with its lenders that it would either find a buyer while in bankruptcy, or convert and liquidate under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Summary

In an 11 page opinion published June 14, 2011, Judge Walrath ruled that a Chapter 7 Trustee’s lack of specificity in pleading a preference action was grounds for dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(6). Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Introduction

We have previously posted about a couple major milestones for Green Field Energy – here Green Field Energy Files for Bankruptcy Protection in Delaware and here: Green Field Energy Services – Preference A

Last month, the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") in the Viashow bankruptcy filed avoidance actions against several creditors of the bankruptcy estate.  One avoidance action in particular seeks to recover damages allegedly sustained by Viashow due to breaches of fiduciary duties by its officers and directors (the "D&O Action").  In addition to Viashow's officers and directors, the D&O Action seeks damages against defendants who allegedly "aided and abetted" the officers and directors in their breach.  

Introduction

Earlier this month, the Liquidating Trustee in the Intermet bankruptcy filed preference actions against various defendants. This post will look at the nature of Intermet's business, why the company filed for bankruptcy and the circumstances behind the formation of the Liquidating Trust that is pursuing the preference actions.

The usual Friday release of a large number of letter rulings by the IRS included several rulings of interest on reorganizations and consolidated return issues.

In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).

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:

The taxpayer was able to convince the court that the creditors who got the stock in the reorganization were not the prior owners. Because the events occurred in 1992, under a prior version of the continuity of proprietary interest rules, continuity of ownership was broken and a section 338(h)(10) election could be made and the basis in the assets inside the corporation stepped up to fair market value, with no tax liability because the seller was in bankruptcy with large net operating losses (NOLs).