Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Stepping into the Shoes of the IRS to Pursue Otherwise Time-Barred Avoidance Actions Under Fraudulent Transfer Statutes
One of the rare legal issues in which bankruptcy practitioners usually are able to speak to clients in absolute terms to provide clear legal advice is the limitations period concerning the pursuit of avoidable transfers in bankruptcy proceedings. Section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code is clear that a trustee has two years after the order for relief to bring an avoidable transfer action. Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code equally is clear that the trustee may pursue avoidable transfers that occurred within two years prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. And Section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the trustee with “strong-arm” powers to avoid a transfer that is voidable “under applicable law” by a creditor holding an unsecured claim. This means that the trustee may look to non-bankruptcy law (usually state law) and deploy any avoiding power that the trustee finds there. The most common use of Section 544(b) is to give the trustee a right of action under state fraudulent transfer law. These are most often useful to the trustee because of the longer reach-back period available under state law, which generally range from three to six years prior to the petition date.
So, for avoidable transfers that occurred outside the state law avoidable transfer period, generally the wisdom imparted to clients is that those are outside the reach of trustees and the bankruptcy court. That is, unless the Internal Revenue Service is a creditor at the time of the transfer and has filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. In such instances, the majority line of cases enable a trustee to go beyond the state law limitations period in order to use the IRS recovery period — which runs 10 years after the date of tax assessment — to pursue avoidable transfers for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.
This issue is not some drop in the bucket merely for academia to ponder its theoretical implications. The effect is real and should be substantial to provide immediate improved dividends to creditors in bankruptcy cases, as discussed in a recent bankruptcy case from the Southern District of Florida. Practice pointers also are relevant to discuss in relation to this improved creditor recovery tool and potentially increased exposure for debtors and their transferees.
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?