The Bottom Line
Possible application of Section 101(22)(A) to safe harbor’s covered entity requirement raises important questions for future transferee defendants.
Key Points:
• Merit Management raises the possibility that customers of “financial institutions” may qualify for protection under Section 546(e) safe harbor even if they would not otherwise meet Section 546(e)’s covered entity requirement.
• Treating customers of “financial institutions” as covered entities could broaden the scope of safe harbor.
In the August 2017 issue of Debt Dialogue, we discussed the recent decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York with respect to claims brought by the litigation trust (the Trust) established in the bankruptcy case of LyondellBasell Industries AF S.C.A. (LBI) against Access Industries, Inc.
The Bottom Line
In another decision affecting Chapter 11 cases, U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, --- S. Ct. ---, 2018 WL 1143822 (2018), on March 5, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Kagan, affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision to review the Bankruptcy Court’s determination of a mixed question of fact and law for clear error, rather than de novo.
On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor, resolving a Circuit split over the interpretation of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution from avoidance on fraudulent transfer grounds.
The Bottom Line
UK-based offshore and subsea oil & gas services company solidifies its position and completes ownership transfer to noteholders in major company milestone.
The Bottom Line