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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
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.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.