Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, ruled that the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, does not shield transferees from liability simply because a particular transaction was routed through a financial intermediary—so-called “conduit transactions.”
USA, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Supreme Court of the United States, Second Circuit, High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Seventh Circuit
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]
Background
USA, Delaware, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Alston & Bird LLP, Uniform Commercial Code (USA), Delaware Supreme Court, United States bankruptcy court