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 Mark Page
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC
The question is whether a debtor’s rejection of its agreement granting a license “terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.”
By Theresa A. Driscoll
With increasing frequency, Chapter 7 trustees are looking to insolvent parents as well as colleges and universities to avoid and recover for estate creditors payments made by insolvent debtors for the benefit of the debtors’ dependents. These cases are premised on the theory that the tuition payments being made by insolvent parents for the benefit of their children are avoidable as constructively fraudulent transfers because the parents do not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the payment of such tuition. Courts are divided as to whether the payment of a child’s tuition provides reasonably equivalent value to the insolvent parents.
By Stephanie Lieb and Dana Robbins
In its recent opinion in Taggart v. Lorenzen, the Supreme Court decided that “[a] court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.” Although this standard appears to be new, it is more than a century old and “brings the old soil” from civil contempt with it.
By Michael L. Cook
A bankruptcy court decision recently detailed how courts applying Bankruptcy Code §303(i) can sanction creditors who “abuse … the power given to [them] … to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition.” The decision shows why the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy requires careful pre-filing legal judgment.