As most practitioners know, the Bankruptcy Code imposes a specific priority scheme that controls the payment of claims. The higher the priority of a particular claim, the more likely it is to be paid. Generally, secured claims are paid first from the specific collateral backing that claim, followed by administrative priority claims, unsecured priority claims and then general unsecured claims. Equity takes last, assuming there is anything left.

Parties to preference and fraudulent transfer actions should pay careful attention to the decision in <i>Angell, Trustee v. Ber Care, Inc. f/k/a PPS, Inc., et al. (In re Caremerica, Inc.)</i>. There, Bankruptcy Judge J. Rich Leonard dismissed certain avoidance claims and upheld others asserted by a Chapter 7 trustee. <i>Caremerica</i> provides useful guidance regarding whether particular elements of a preference or fraudulent transfer claim have been adequately pled.

In <i>Consolidated Edison Company v. United States</i>, the taxpayer's tax treatment of a LILO transaction was upheld by the court, and all tax benefits claimed by the taxpayer were sustained. Naturally, some muckraking columnists hurried to criticize the Con Edison decision, expressing disappointment that the court actually applied historic leasing case law to a well-developed factual record. Despite their whining, the case demonstrates that the IRS (and the muckrakers) was wrong to treat all LILO and SILO transactions as though they were some prepackaged tax-shelter commodity. Each case turns on its facts, and the taxpayer wins in a properly chosen and argued case.

Features

In-depth analysis of recent rulings.

Analysis of recent key cases.

Recent important litigation.

Features

It has long been recognized that claims go up in an economic downturn just as the underwriters' ability to pay decreases. But is there more going on in this new era of strict scrutiny for title claims? Is the evidence merely anecdotal?

Features

Everything in this issue, listed in an easy-to-read format.