HIGHLIGHTS:

"In God we trust. All others must bring data.” — W. Edwards Deming

With data being the new “coin of the realm,” those who control and exploit data have a winning advantage over competitors. This piece focuses on control of data in the unique situation of a cloud hosting provider’s bankruptcy.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.

HCR ManorCare, Inc., a national provider of short-term, post-hospital services and long-term care based in Toledo, Ohio, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-10467). HCR’s Petition estimates both its assets and liabilities to be between $1–$10 billion.

On February 1, 2018, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia in In re: Kenneth R. Pierce found that the printed name on the debtor’s driver’s license was the name that was important for Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) security interest perfection purposes (No. 17–60154–EJC, 2018 WL 679677 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2018)).   

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).

On February 6, 2018, the District Court for the District of Montana refused a debtor’s request to change the venue of a post-petition “related to” police/regulatory action commenced by a federal agency in district court. The decision will have important implications on how “related to” litigation is treated for venue purposes—especially in the context of police and regulatory actions.

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. case, holding that funds that are merely transferred through a financial institution are not afforded the Bankruptcy Code “safe harbor” protections of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), which precludes the avoidance or “clawback” of certain transfers; rather, whether the safe harbor applies in a given case will depend on the whether the parties to the overarching transfer are listed as protected parties in the statute.

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.