Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Feb 27, 2018, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883 (2018), the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision holding that: 1) the only relevant transfer for purposes of analyzing whether the Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) “safe harbor” applies is the “overarching transfer” that the trustee is seeking to avoid (as opposed to the component transfers between mere intermediaries); and 2) under the facts presented, the relevant transfer between the debtor and transferee was not covered by the safe harbor because it was not “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” or other covered entity. Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883 (2018), abrogating In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., 719 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2013), In re QSI Holdings, Inc., 571 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2009), Contemporary Indus. Corp. v. Frost, 564 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2009), In re Resorts Int’l Inc., 181 F.3d 505 (3d Cir. 1999), In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 952 F.2d 1230 (10th Cir. 1991).
By Jacob H. Marshall
How Lenders and Debtors can Minimize UST Fees and Maximize Creditor Recoveries
As predicted in the first part of this article (May, 2018), the new United States Trustee (UST) fee has had a disproportionate effect on middle-market, high-velocity cash flow companies. The best solution is for Congress to revisit the fee structure and refine it to reflect the realities of particular cases and the actual burden on the UST.
By Michael L. Cook
A defendant creditor in a preference suit may offset 1) the amount of later “new value” it sold to the Chapter 11 debtor against 2) the debtor’s earlier preferential payment to the creditor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held.
By Daniel A. Lev
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
The ability of a debtor to reject a restrictive covenant under Section 365 or to sell free and clear of a covenant under Section 363(f) is limited and the obstacles are difficult to surmount. A possible solution, however, may surface if a debtor can demonstrate a change of circumstances under state law.
By Tom McParland
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Sept. 13 upheld a Delaware Bankruptcy Court’s decision to block a Florida-based energy company from collecting a $275 million merger termination fee against the bankruptcy estates of Energy Future Holdings Corp. and a subsidiary.