Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is There Standing to Prosecute Fraudulent Transfer Claims if Unsecured Creditors Have Been Fully Paid?
The answer to this question depends, in part, on where the debtor's case is pending. In the Second Circuit, courts allow defendants to escape exposure to fraudulent transfer actions if the debtor's estate cannot identify at least one general unsecured creditor who would benefit from a recovery in that litigation. In contrast, courts in the Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits hold that a debtor's estate has standing to bring such claims, even after all allowed claims of general unsecured creditors have been paid in full, if the estate as a whole would benefit, for example through the payment of professional fees and other administrative expenses of the estate. It is unclear whether this split among the Circuit Courts of Appeal will affect the conduct of debtors and creditors in order to influence the outcome of avoidance actions brought by or against them.
Contexts in Which This Issue Arises
In re Petters Co., Inc., 495 B.R. 887 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013) exemplifies one context in which this issue appears. There, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee had commenced more than 200 adversary proceedings to recover for the estate allegedly fraudulent transfers made in connection with a Ponzi scheme. In its pleadings, the trustee stated generally that at all material times, there existed at least one creditor who held an unsecured claim, and that the challenged transfers “are avoidable under applicable nonbankruptcy law by a creditor holding an unsecured claim in the bankruptcy case.” See Petters, 495 B.R. at 896.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.