Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
“[L]ack of good faith in a SIPA [Securities Investor Protection Act] liquidation applies an inquiry notice, not willful blindness, standard, and that a SIPA trustee does not bear the burden of pleading the transferee’s lack of good faith,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2021 in In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC, 2021 WL 3854761, 91 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021) (Madoff). Reversing the district court’s imposition of federal securities law in this fraudulent transfer action, the Second Circuit applied federal bankruptcy law when holding that good faith is an affirmative defense under sections 548(c) and 550(b)(1). It rejected the district court’s requiring the trustee to” bear the burden of pleading the transferee’s lack of good faith,” Id. at 17, refusing to depart “from the well-established rule that the defendant bears the burden of pleading an affirmative defense.” Id. at 57.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Landmines In Bankruptcy Appellate Practice, Part III
By Michael L. Cook
When courts have made important exceptions in the past year, they have either added a gloss on the Judicial Code, corrected lawyers’ errors, filled in statutory gaps, or clarified the relevant statutory language.
A Strategic Guide for Lenders to Navigate Anticipated Distressed Loan Fallout
By Jay Steinman and Karina Leiter
The steps outlined in this article offer a strategic guide for lenders, empowering them to navigate the complexities of loan workouts and enforcement actions with resilience and foresight.
Third Circuit: Bankruptcy Code Mandates Appointment of Examiner In Chapter 11 Cases
By Francis J. Lawall and Brenden S. Dahrouge
The Third Circuit recently held in 'In re FTX Trading' that the plain text of Section 1104(c)(2) mandates the appointment of an examiner under the specified conditions set forth. As a result, the FTX decision will carry significant implications for large and medium-sized bankruptcy cases.
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Ryan Spengler
The Central District of California court held that a bankruptcy court’s administration of cannabis-related state court claims against a debtor’s estate is not a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.