Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code bars state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims asserted by creditors seeking to augment recoveries from a bankruptcy estate
Earlier today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Transfer Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor of Section 546(e) (the Safe Harbor) prohibits clawback claims brought by creditors under state fraudulent transfer laws to the same extent that it prohibits such claims when brought by a debtor.
Summary of recommended changes to the Bankruptcy Code from the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11
Summary of recommended changes
This chart summarizes the Recommendations in the Commission’s Report that relate to or would have an impact on creditors’ rights.
Background
Much Anticipated Extraterritoriality Ruling Could Have Far-Ranging Implications
District Court decides that in a broker-dealer liquidation governed by SIPA, where a trustee seeks to recover funds paid to the defendant under Sections 548(a) and 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which impose liability for fraudulent conveyances where the defendant lacked good faith in receiving the funds: (i) the defendant’s good faith is evaluated under a subjective willful blindness standard, and (ii) to survive a motion to dismiss, the trustee bringing the fraudulent conveyance claims must plead facts sufficient to establish the defendant’s lack of good faith.
Sale at an undervalue; time for presenting a petition; implied term avoids manifest injustice; complying with time limits; order for sale threshold; Wragge & Co's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.
Sale at an undervalue
In Butterfield Bank (UK) Ltd v Philip and others, the bank sought summary judgment against four guarantors of a bank facility. It was alleged that the bank had sold a property at a £500,000 undervalue.
Notice of assignment
Notice of assignment can be given by either the assignee or assignor under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).
This was the High Court's finding in Smith v 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd and another. Smith was notified by her credit card company that her credit card debt had been assigned to 1st Credit. 1st Credit wrote to Smith shortly afterwards confirming the assignment and advising how payment could be made. Smith failed to pay and was made bankrupt by 1st Credit which subsequently repossessed and sold Smith's property.
The court will unravel a transaction where it appears to have been entered into to place assets beyond the reach of creditors.
This was the case in Ambrose sub nom Garwood v Amborse & Ambrose, where the trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Ambrose applied for declaratory relief and an order for the possession and sale of Mr & Mrs Ambrose's property.
In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.
Where there is no evidence of lack of authority in placing orders which have not been paid, the court refused to allow an injunction to restrain a winding-up petition.
In the matter of A company (2012) (the company), a creditor had issued a statutory demand against it in relation to invoices for advertising placed with it by the company's sales and marketing manager (M) that were unpaid. The company argued that those orders had been placed without its authority and M admitted that she had exceeded her authority in so placing them.
Valuation evidence
The court has reaffirmed that comparable sales evidence is the best evidence when determining the retrospective valuation of a property.