Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Defending the Preference and Fraudulent Transfer Safe Harbor
Last month, we discussed the fact that the The Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) has at least nine so-called “safe harbor” (i.e., bankruptcy insulating) provisions for financial contracts. As we showed in Part One, some lower courts have inconsistently enforced those safe harbor provisions in the preference and fraudulent transfer context, generating costly litigation for the asserted cause of creditor recovery. We continued by discussing the legislative history of the safe harbor.
In discussing the history of Enron, we pointed out that District Judge Colleen McMahon succinctly summarized the relevant legislative history, noting that it had first been “enacted in 1978 in response to a” decision holding that a bankruptcy trustee was not barred “from recovering [on fraudulent transfer grounds] a margin payment made to a commodities clearinghouse.” Seligson v. New York Produce Exchange, 394 F. Supp. 125, 128-36 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Enron III, at *5. By 1982, explained the court, ” 546(e) “broadened the safe harbor by extending its scope to include the securities markets 'c 'ebeyond the ordinary course of business to include margin and settlement payments to and from brokers, clearing organizations, and financial institutions'f.” Enron III, at *5-6, quoting Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Charles Schwab & Co., (10th Cir. 1990) (“Kaiser I“), at 849, and citing H.R. Rep. 97-420, at *2 (1982). “This broad protection was designed to ensure settlement finality, and therefore market stability.” Enron III, at *6. The discussion concludes herein.
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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.