Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
SCOTUS: No Safe Harbor Protection Where Financial Institutions are Mere Intermediaries
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).
The Court's decision is instructive and likely welcomed by trustees and other estate fiduciaries faced with transferees asserting safe harbor defenses where financial institutions are involved (or other covered entities) are mere intermediaries (i.e., did not receive a financial benefit). But, as discussed below, it is unclear whether the Court resolved all debates concerning section 546(e) safe harbor's application. Regardless, the Court's decision and analysis are instructive for both bankruptcy and corporate practitioners, and will likely yield significant returns for estate beneficiaries.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.