Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Key Creditors' Rights Decision
The Second Circuit handed down a key creditors' rights decision on April 1 in Sharp Int'l Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (In re Sharp Int'l Corp. & Sharp Sales Corp.), 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5241(2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2005). The court affirmed the lower courts' finding that a secured lender was not liable for aiding and abetting management's breach of fiduciary duty, and not liable for receiving a $12.25 million loan repayment from a closely held borrower it correctly suspected of engaging in massive fraud. The decision limits the scope of a lender's duties to its borrower and other creditors. Absent the lender's participation in its borrower's fraud, the lender should have no liability on a fraudulent transfer theory or on any other basis, at least in New York, where Sharp arose.
The Role of State Fraudulent Transfer Law in Federal Bankruptcy Cases
A trustee or Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession may attack a fraudulent transfer either under Bankruptcy Code (Code) ' 548 or under state law, made available to the trustee by Code ' 544(b) (trustee may avoid any pre-bankruptcy transfer voidable by unsecured creditors). See, e.g., In re Image Worldwide, Ltd., 139 F.3d 574, 577 (7th Cir. 1998) (bankruptcy case construing UFTA and applying state law); In re Leonard, 125 F. 3d 543, 544 (7th Cir. 1997) (“if any unsecured creditor could reach an asset of the debtor outside bankruptcy, the Trustee can use ' 544(b) to obtain that asset for the estate[,] … Trustee need not name a specific creditor.”). Because of generally longer reach-back recovery periods, state fraudulent transfer law is more frequently relied on in this kind of bankruptcy litigation. When, for example, a debtor fraudulently transfers assets in New York 3 years prior to bankruptcy, the trustee cannot rely on Code ' 548, but must rely on state fraudulent transfer law to challenge the transfer. New York's statute of limitations for fraud suits — 6 years — will govern. See, e.g., Buncher Co. v. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of Genfarm LP IV, 229 F.3d 245, 250-51 (3d Cir. 2000) (“When recovery is sought under section 544(b) … [t]he remedy … adopts the longer 'reach-back' provisions of state law.”); Seligson v. N.Y. Prod. Exch., 378 F. Supp 1076 1106-1107(S.D.N.Y. 1974) (pre-code case; if fraudulent transfer claim is brought under state law, that state's statute of limitations applies.).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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 a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?