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 Michael L. Cook
“A … transferee [who] received fraudulent transfers with actual knowledge or inquiry notice of fraud or insolvency” loses any “good faith” defense available under the Texas version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), held the Fifth Circuit in Janvey v. GMAG, LLC
By Matthew Gold
It has been nearly two years since the Supreme Court upended the world of the Bankruptcy Code securities safe harbor with its decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.. For all of the speculation regarding its consequences, there have been few subsequent lower court decisions applying Merit Management, however those cases provide valuable guidance to practitioners facing safe harbor litigation as well as transactional lawyers looking to take advantage of safe harbor protections.
By Albena Petrakov
With the recent carnage in the retail industry, a lot of attention goes to the fate of landlords when their tenants seek bankruptcy protection. A recent case that brings balance is Revel AC Inc. v. IDEA Boardwalk, LLC.
By Paul A. Rubin and Hanh V. Huynh
Employees of a troubled company who stay on as consultants to assist in liquidating its assets or preparing the company for a bankruptcy filing may later be disappointed to face claims to claw back their prepetition compensation.