Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Reinforces Bankruptcy Code Settlement Payment Safe Harbor
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of [Bankruptcy] Code §546 (e)'s safe harbor, which pre-empts the trustee's state-law fraudulent [transfer] claims." In re Boston Generating, LLC, 2024 WL 4234886 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2024). The lower courts had dismissed the liquidating trustee's claims because Code §546 (e)'s safe harbor provision had preempted the state law fraudulent transfer claims, relying on binding precedent. In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conv. Litig., 946 F.3d. 66 (2d Cir. 2019) (Tribune II), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2552 (2021) (Creditors could not circumvent §546(e) safe harbor by suing under state law). More significant, though, was the court's explanation of why: a) the payment here was part of a securities contract; and why b) the debtor parent and its debtor subsidiary were "each a 'financial institution' under Bankruptcy Code (Code) §101(22)(A)."
Facts
The debtor corporate parent, a holding company, had used its debtor subsidiary to finance its so-called "Leveraged Recap Transaction." In effect, the parent purchased equity from its members using the cash borrowed by its subsidiary. The debtor subsidiary received loan proceeds from its lenders and promptly sent the proceeds from its bank account (approximately $708 million) to its parent's bank account for transfer to the selling members. The trustee sought to recover the $708 million from the member defendants "who received payments for their equity securities pursuant to the Leveraged Recap Transaction." Id. at*1. He alleged an "initial transfer" with $708 million from the subsidiary and a "subsequent transfer" of those funds to the defendant members. The trustee admittedly split the transaction to get around Code §546(e), arguing that the initial subsidiary-to-parent transfer was not a settlement payment and not made as part of a "securities contract."
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
New York's Latest Cybersecurity Commitment
On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.