The chapter 11 case of Energy Future Holdings (“EFH” or “Debtors”) roared back to life this month.

Bankruptcy and restructuring professionals usually do not need to be political junkies. Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, and the accompanying machinations of the Congressional legislative process, typically occur at a glacial pace, and such changes nearly always affect future rather than current chapter 11 cases.  However, the 

Energy Future Holdings (EFH), f/k/a TXU Corp., an energy company centered in Texas, was taken private in 2007 in the largest leveraged buyout transaction that has ever taken place.  The deal was largely predicated on an anticipated rise in natural gas prices; when prices instead plummeted the company, which had borrowed nearly $40 billion, was left with a massively unbalanced capital structure.  The chapter 11 cases of EFH and its subsid

Opposing lawyers for Jefferson County, the debtor in the largest Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy case ever filed, and the holders of its sewer warrants squared off last week in the ongoing fight over control of the County’s sewer system and the right to its revenues. (Expert witness

IN RE: MEYERS (August 2, 2010)

SMITH v. SIPI, LLC (July 27, 2010)

IN RE: MCKINNEY (June 23, 2010)

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.

Increasingly, formal restructures, whether solvent or insolvent in nature, are closely aligned to court-supervised processes, adding certainty and transparency to the restructuring process.

In handing over any documents in litigation or Court process, you must assess whether or not the documents have tax relevance.