Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistFeaturesBankruptcyLitigation

Mitigating Lender Risk in Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Litigation

By Arthur Steinberg and Michael R. Handler
October 01, 2019

The constructive fraudulent transfer provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (§548(a)(1)(B)) and state law (made applicable in bankruptcy cases under Bankruptcy Code §544(b)) give the bankruptcy estate representative (e.g., a Chapter 11 trustee, debtor-in-possession or creditors' committee (through derivative standing, discussed below)) the right to avoid a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation incurred by the debtor if the debtor, among other things: 1) received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation incurred; and 2) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, or became insolvent as a result thereof. Generally, "less than reasonable equivalent value" means less than fair consideration (there is a range of value of what would be considered fair consideration), and "insolvency" means the debtor had liabilities (including appropriately valued contingent liabilities) in excess of the fair market value of its assets.

Lenders to a debtor sometimes view constructive fraudulent transfer claims against equity holders and other non-lender third parties as an estate asset that may boost their recovery. Proceeds from these claims are often shared pari passu with the general unsecured creditors, which in certain cases will include under-secured creditors on account of the portion of their total claim that is not secured by collateral (i.e., the "deficiency claim").

This premium content is locked for The Bankruptcy Strategist subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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 Image

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 Image

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.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.