Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Pari Delicto Not a Bar to a Bankruptcy Trustee's Recovery
The doctrine of in pari delicto stands for the proposition that when parties litigate based on mutual fault, the defending party's position is superior. See Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 632 (1988); see also Mosier v. Caliter, Nebeker & McCullough, 546 F.3d 1271, 1275 (10th Cir. 2008). The doctrine, rooted in the common law, prevents a wrongdoer from profiting from its own bad acts and promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring “that courts [do] not lend their good offices to mediating disputes among wrongdoers ' .” Mosier, 546 F.3d at 1275.
Bankruptcy trustees are particularly susceptible to this affirmative defense when pursuing certain claims against third parties, as the debtor's own culpability may bar recovery. This is especially relevant in cases of fraud where a trustee pursues an action against a third party that colluded with the debtor or its agents, resulting in pre-petition harm to the debtor. See, e.g., Grassmueck v. American Shorthorn Ass'n, 402 F.3d 833, 837-41 (8th Cir. 2005). Courts have equally found that in pari delicto bars a trustee's recovery against certain professionals whose negligence contributed to the debtor's fraudulent conduct. See Luzinski v. Peabody & Arnold, LLP (In re Gosman), 382 B.R. 826, 838 (S.D. Fla. 2007). However, courts generally have refused to apply the in pari delicto defense to a bankruptcy trustee seeking to avoid certain fraudulent transfers under section 548 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Code) despite the debtor's pre-petition bad acts. See, e.g., Kapila v. Bennet) In re Pearlman, 472 B.R. 115, 122 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012).
In Pari Delicto and Federal Bankruptcy Law
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?