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.

Each year, millions of parents across America write checks to institutions of higher learning, in payment of tuition and charges for their children to pursue a college degree. Inevitably, some of those parents end up in the bankruptcy courts. In recent years, trustees have found an attractive potential source of estate recovery: pursuing the colleges and universities to recover tuition and related payments as constructive fraudulent transfers.

On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split under the Bankruptcy Code and determined that where funds passed through financial institutions acting as payment conduits, where the ultimate transfer sought to be avoided was not the type of transaction protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), shielding transfers through financial institutions from avoidance actions by bankruptcy trustees, was inapplicable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a completely unsecured lien may be stripped off in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b) even though a proof of claim has not been filed.

A copy of the opinion in Edwin Burkhart v. Nancy Spencer Grigsby is available at: Link to Opinion.

VER Technologies HoldCo LLC, along with eight subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10834).

On Monday, the Federal Maritime Commission launched the first phase of its investigation into port demurrage, detention, and free time practices, ordering vessel operating common carriers (OCCs) and marine terminal operators (MTOs) to provide information and documents explaining these practices, especially regarding circumstances where shippers are not able to retrieve cargo. A similar effort with respect to container terminals at major U.S. ports is also underway.

As the effective date for the CFPB’s successor in interest and bankruptcy billing statement requirements quickly approaches, one question we’ve heard multiple times is whether a mortgage servicer is required to know when a confirmed successor in interest is in bankruptcy. The question stems from upcoming provisions in Regulations X and Z that will collectively say, in essence, that a confirmed successor in interest must be treated as if he or she is a borrower for the purposes of the mortgage servicing rules.

On March 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed both the in rem jurisdiction of a federal district court sitting in admiralty vis-a-vis an intervening bankruptcy, and in a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the proper approach to setting the amount of maintenance an injured seaman is entitled to receive prior to trial. In Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir.

A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank’s motion to compel arbitration of a debtor’s asserted violation of the court’s discharge injunction, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, *20 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018).

EV Energy Partners, L.P., along with thirteen (13) affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10814). EV, based in Houston, Texas, is an upstream oil & gas developer operating throughout the United States.