Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued an opinion concluding that trustees can pursue recovery from foreign subsequent transferees who received property in transactions that occurred entirely outside the United States. The opinion reversed two lower court rulings and arguably conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on extraterritoriality of U.S. legislation.
The fraudulent transfer provisions of the Bankruptcy Code give trustees broad power to avoid transfers of property that were made by the debtor before the bankruptcy case if either: 1) the debtor transferred the property with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors; or 2) the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transferred property. 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1). If the transfer is avoidable, then a separate provision of the Bankruptcy Code gives trustees power to recover the property from the initial transferee or any subsequent transferee who received the property directly or indirectly from the initial transferee. 11 U.S.C. §550(a). In cases where trustees seek to recover property from subsequent transferees located outside the United States who received the property from transferors also located outside the United States, the question arises whether the Bankruptcy Code’s fraudulent transfer recovery provision reaches that transaction — in other words, whether §550(a) applies extraterritorially to allow trustees to recover property from foreign subsequent transferees.
By Peter Janovsky
A debtor’s goal in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is to confirm a “plan of reorganization.” Creditors usually have the right to vote for or against a plan, and in some cases, a plan can be confirmed over the objection of one or more classes of creditors. This is called a “cram-down.” The Bankruptcy Code’s rules governing cram-down are complex and differ for secured and unsecured classes of creditors. This article shows how bankruptcy courts have ruled on a particular method of cram-down known as a “dirt-for-debt” plan.
By Aaron R. Cahn
Any Cannabis-Related Business or Any Business In a Relationship With One Will Likely Find Itself Barred from the Door of the Federal Bankruptcy Courts
The ability to file a federal bankruptcy case is an important resource for struggling businesses. It is particularly important to start-up businesses in an emerging field, such as the production and marketing of cannabis-related products. It is precisely this resource, however, that is currently being denied to cannabis-related businesses.
By Mark D. Silverschotz
The new decision is significant because lawsuits against former (and current) officers and directors of debtors commonly are brought, as here, by trusts established under plans of reorganization. Because insurance policies often are the only viable source of recovery for the claims asserted in such lawsuits, this decision potentially opens a pathway to creditor recovery in other similar matters.
By Chris Updike and Joseph Zujkowski
Faster, Shorter, Smarter, Better
Among other trends, practitioners are increasingly using pre-packaged and pre-negotiated cases, drafting clearer and more concise pleadings, employing smarter deposit management practices, and harnessing improved technology — strategies for a new era of bankruptcy.