Treasury's most recent Transactions Report reveals a loss of $2,334,120,000 from two institutions in bankruptcy.
A newly released IRS letter ruling (PLR 201006003, Oct. 28, 2009) provides guidance on how a consolidated return group may obtain an ordinary loss deduction in liquidating an insolvent subsidiary. Although a write-off of worthless stock generally produces a capital loss deduction, Code Section 165(g)(3) converts these losses to ordinary deductions when they arise from a write-off of stock of an affiliated corporation.
The South Florida Bankruptcy Court in the Tousa case ordered various creditors that had benefitted from a fraudulent conveyance to disgorge $421,000,000 to the jointly-administered Tousa bankruptcy estates. The court also ordered the avoidance of liens on the assets of various Tousa subsidiary entities who were also debtors in the bankruptcy proceedings. This case may raise increased focus upon the legal theory of fraudulent conveyance, which was the rationale used by the bankruptcy court to order the money returned.
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its affiliate and subsidiary debtors (collectively, “Lehman”) filed their proposed chapter 11 plan of reorganization in their jointly administered chapter 11 proceedings on Monday, March 15, 2010 (Docket No. 7572). Monday was the last day for Lehman to file a plan pursuant to section 1121(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in order for Lehman to maintain the exclusive right to file and obtain confirmation of a plan.¹
Today, Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) announced a Global Settlement Agreement with J.P. Morgan Chase and the FDIC. Under the agreement, J.P. Morgan Chase will give WMI over $4 billion in WMI deposits in its former failed bank subsidiaries in exchange for over $6 billion in other assets. Also, the three parties will split two potential tax refunds worth a total of $5.6 billion.
The FDIC has recently appealed a loss it suffered at trial on the question of whether the debtor in bankruptcy (the holding company of a failed bank) made a “commitment” to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank under Section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code. After a week-long bench trial with an advisory jury, the Northern District of Ohio rejected the FDIC’s claim that a commitment had been made by the holding company to the Office of Thrift Supervision. The F
Recently secured parties, including some indenture trustees, have found the priority, scope, validity and enforceability of seemingly properly perfected security interests in Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) licenses, authorizations and permits, and any proceeds or value derived therefrom, challenged by creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.
On 13 December 2009, the Dubai Government issued Decree No. 57 for 2009, in response to the widely publicized concerns over Dubai World’s debt position. The decree established a tribunal seated within the Dubai International Financial Centre, tasked with hearing and deciding claims against Dubai World, its subsidiaries and any person related to the settlement of the financial obligations of those organizations (Dubai World). The Decree also created an entirely new insolvency law which will be exclusively applicable to Dubai World.
Why was Decree No. 57 issued?
Last week Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai, issued Decree No. 57 for 2009 Establishing a Tribunal to decide the Disputes Related to the Settlement of the Financial Position of Dubai World and its Subsidiaries (the “Decree”). The Decree establishes a tribunal (the “Tribunal”) comprising three members--Sir Anthony Evans, Michael Hwang, and Sir John Chadwick--to hear and decide all demands and claims submitted against Dubai World and/or its subsidiaries including Nakheel and Limitless, and any of their directors or employees.
The FDIC has recently appealed a loss it suffered at trial on the question of whether the debtor in bankruptcy (the holding company of a failed bank) made a “commitment” to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank under Section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code. After a week-long bench trial with an advisory jury, the Northern District of Ohio rejected the FDIC’s claim that a commitment had been made by the holding company to the Office of Thrift Supervision. The F