Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee to recover transfers from creditors that are labeled “preferences.” To avoid a transfer as a preference, the trustee must generally demonstrate that the transfer: (1) was of an interest of the debtor in property, (2) was made to or for the benefit of a creditor, (3) was made on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor, (4) was made while the debtor was insolvent, (5) was made within 90 days before the petition date (within a year if the creditor was an insider) and (6) enabled the creditor to receive more than the c

It seems that most bankruptcy decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court involve individual debtors, and the Supreme Court’s latest opinion is no exception. Even though the decision is not in a business bankruptcy case, it examines the bankruptcy court’s powers under Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Law v.

The debtor in Law listed his house on his bankruptcy schedules, claiming a homestead exemption in the amount of $75,000 under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.730(a)(1). The debtor represented that the house was encumbered by two liens: a note and deed of trust for $147,156.52 in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, and a second note and deed of trust for $156,929.04 in favor of “Lin’s Mortgage & Associates.” Based on these representations, the debtor made it appear as if there was no nonexempt value in the house that the trustee could realize for the benefit of the estate.

On March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Law v. Seigel, Case No. 12-5196, 571 U.S.

On January 10, 2014, the Hon. George R. Hodges, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, handed down a decision that promises to be a “game changer” for asbestos manufacturers facing potentially crushing mesothelioma death claims.

Several recent legal developments will likely impact acquisition finance.

Sometime this summer, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in U.S. v. Quality Stores.  In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the Sixth Circuit’s holding that supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (“SUB payments”) relating to severance payments are not subject to FICA taxes. U.S. v. Quality Stores, 693 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012).  The Sixth Circuit decision resurrects a long-disputed issue regarding the applicability of FICA to severance pay.

Recently, two courts of appeal dismissed as moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) appeals of orders   authorizing the sale of assets. The courts’ analysis focused on whether granting the appellant’s relief  from the lower courts’ order would affect the asset sale. Thus the trend in the appellate courts is that only appeals that will not affect the sale itself (such as a dispute over the distribution of sale proceeds) are not subject to being dismissed as moot.

The Delaware State Legislature recently amended Article IV, section 11 of the Delaware Constitution to add United States Bankruptcy Courts to the expanding list of courts and agencies that may certify questions to the Delaware Supreme Court. The list already included other Delaware courts, the United States Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a United States District Court, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the highest appellate court of any other state. See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(8).