Must New Value Remain Unpaid to Serve As a Defense to a Preference Action?

Does subsequent new value need to be unpaid to constitute a defense to a preferential transfer under section 547(c)(4)? The issue arises when a creditor asserts the subsequent new value defense to a preference action, on the basis that additional credit (goods or services) was extended after the preferential transfer occurred, even if the subsequent new value was paid for by the debtor. With every decade comes a new wrinkle in the discussion on whether the subsequent new value provided must remain unpaid. The issue has been resurrected recently due to the frequency of critical vendor orders authorizing the post-petition payment of pre-petition debt and debtors-in-possession agreeing to pay reclamation claims in exchange for keeping the goods.

31 minute read March 29, 2005 at 09:29 AM

By

Russell C. Silberglied And Kimberly D. Newmarch