Does subsequent new value need to be unpaid to constitute a defense to a preferential transfer under section 547(c)(4)?
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.
By
Russell C. Silberglied And Kimberly D. NewmarchThis premium content is locked for The Bankruptcy Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Bankruptcy Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
