Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Supreme Court Holds That Presence of Financial Conduits Does Not Trigger “Safe Harbor” Protection for Securities-Related Transfers Under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code
    2018-03-05

    On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Jacob A Adlerstein , Paul M. Basta , Kelley A. Cornish , Alice Belisle Eaton , Brian S. Hermann , Kyle J. Kimpler , Alan W Kornberg , Elizabeth R. McColm , Andrew N. Rosenberg , Jeffrey D. Saferstein
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
    Not So Safe: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Provision
    2018-03-06

    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).

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, A&O Shearman, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Fredric Sosnick , Joel Moss , Solomon J. Noh , Ned S. Schodek
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    A&O Shearman
    SCOTUS Merit Case: The Clawback Carwash Is Closed…
    2018-03-01

    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.

    Filed under:
    USA, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Safe harbor (law), Supreme Court of the United States
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Vinson & Elkins LLP
    Supreme Court Issues Decision on Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Provision Resolving Long-Standing Circuit Split
    2018-02-28

    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.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Andrew Wyatt Pollack
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
    Supreme Court Adopts Restrictive Minority View of Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Regarding Certain Securities Payments
    2018-02-28

    On February 27, 2018, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. (link here) that an otherwise-avoidable transfer is not subject to the safe harbor in Section 546(e) (which provides, in relevant part, a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution” or that “is a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . .

    Filed under:
    USA, Corporate Finance/M&A, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Spencer Fane LLP, Safe harbor (law), Credit Suisse, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Ryan C. Hardy
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Spencer Fane LLP
    Substance Over Form: Supreme Court Ruling Strengthens Avoidance Powers of Bankruptcy Trustees
    2018-02-28

    On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. The key issue in the case was the scope of Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code which insulates certain transactions from a bankruptcy trustee’s statutory avoidance powers. A bankruptcy trustee may avoid many types of pre-petition transfers, including preferential payments made to creditors within 90 days of a bankruptcy petition and transfers made for less than reasonably equivalent value completed within two years of a bankruptcy filing.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Safe harbor (law), Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Dylan Trache
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
    Major Section 546(c) Safe Harbor Issue Resolved by the Supreme Court
    2018-02-28

    Our post last year concerning “[t]he long-running litigation spawned by the leveraged buyout of Tribune Company . . . and the subsequent bankruptcy case”[1] described a case--FTI v. Merit[2]--that was then pending in the Supreme Court.

    Filed under:
    USA, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Bankruptcy, Supreme Court of the United States
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
    Supreme Court Narrows the Scope of a Bankruptcy 'Safe Harbor' Where Financial Institutions are Mere Intermediaries
    2018-03-01

    Investors currently relying on certain of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions to save them from clawback claims should consider finding new shelter. The U.S. Supreme Court in Merit Management Group, LP v.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Gregory Gennady Plotko , David W.T. Daniels
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP
    High Court Limits Scope of 546(e) Safe Harbor for Recipients of “Conduit” Transactions
    2018-03-01

    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.”

    Filed under:
    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
    Authors:
    Kyle R. Satterfield
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
    Not So Safe Anymore: SCOTUS Narrowly Construes Safe Harbor for Avoidable Transfers
    2018-02-27

    The Circuit Courts of Appeal have split on whether a prepetition transfer made by a debtor is avoidable if the transfer was made through a financial intermediary that was a mere conduit. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved the split by deciding that transfers through “mere conduits” are not protected. This is a major (and adverse) decision for lenders, bondholders and noteholders who receive payments through an intermediary such as a disbursing agent.

    Filed under:
    USA, Corporate Finance/M&A, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bracewell LLP, Safe harbor (law), Credit Suisse, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Jason G. Cohen
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Bracewell LLP

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 59
    • Page 60
    • Page 61
    • Page 62
    • Current page 63
    • Page 64
    • Page 65
    • Page 66
    • Page 67
    • …
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days