The trading rules and conventions of the loan market are well known to its participants. Similarly, the laws and practices governing equity securities trading in the U.S. are quite familiar to securities market professionals. The opportunity for confusion may arise, however, when these two markets quickly converge—for example, when the loans of a reorganized borrower are converted into or satisfied by the issuance of equity securities.

First, let's get one thing clear. A fraudulent conveyance, despite its name, doesn't necessarily involve fraud, and it certainly doesn't involve driving goods across the state in a wagon pulled by horses.

OK, now that we have that out of the way . . .

Does this sound familiar? A newly formed entity purchases distressed bank debt after the debtor has proposed a reorganization plan. The purchaser obtains a blocking position and uses its negotiating leverage to obtain control of the plan process and ultimately the borrower’s assets, which have strategic importance to the purchaser.

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).

Last month we reported on the overwhelming victory of the Transeastern Lenders in their appeal of the decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ordering them to disgorge almost $500 million in loan repayments, pre- and post-judgment interest and professional fees (“TOUSA I“1). That update can be found here.

BUSSON-SOKOLIK v. MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING (February 10, 2011)

On February 28, Fitch addressed questions that have arisen related to the orderly liquidation authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and the securitization safe harbor. Fitch stated that clarifications from the FDIC provide comfort that the rights of investors can be determined at the outset of a securitization and that the ratings assigned to the transaction can be de-linked from those of the sponsoring entity.

The Federal Bankruptcy Act prohibits public and private employers from engaging in various discriminatory acts against individuals because they have filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 525. Inexplicably, the statutes applicable to public and private employers are not identical. The law applicable to a public employer, for example, specifically provides that it "may not . . . deny employment to" one who has filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 525(a). This "deny employment to" language does not appear in the statute for private employers. 11 U.S.C. § 525(b).

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued rulings regarding the availability of tax losses after a bankruptcy,1 the ability to take a loss under Sections 165(a) and 165(g),2 and the characterization of a loss after an ownership change.3 There are few rulings or other sources of authority for these types of issues, and thus, a review of these rulings provides insight into the IRS’s current thinking on the issues addressed.

PLR 201051020

On February 16, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a discounted cash flow analysis constituted “a commercially reasonable determinant[] of value” for purposes of section 562(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.1 In so doing, the court upheld the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware decision sustaining the objection of American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc.