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.
*May exclude premium content
By Louis F. Solimine, James J. Henderson and Andrew L. Turscak, Jr.
In a recent, unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final order that must be appealed within the time provided under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002.
By Rudolph J. Di Massa, Jr. and Geoffrey A. Heaton
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia recently denied creditors’ counsel’s motion for a fee enhancement under the “common fund doctrine,” finding it could not award the requested fees absent statutory authority.
By Lawrence J. Kotler
In the case of In re Solutions Liquidation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware adjudicated a motion to dismiss filed by the debtors’ former managers and officers in connection with the breach of fiduciary duty complaint filed against them by the trustee of the debtors’ liquidating trust.
By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.
The provisions of the Bankruptcy Code sometimes conflict with other federal laws and regulations. The Sixth Circuit Court recently considered whether an energy company debtor could reject a power purchase agreement as an executory contract that had been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)