Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Curious Case of Extraterritoriality and Fraudulent Transfer Under the Bankruptcy Code
The fraudulent transfer provisions of the Bankruptcy Code give trustees broad power to avoid transfers of property that were made by the debtor before the bankruptcy case if either: 1) the debtor transferred the property with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors; or 2) the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transferred property. 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1). If the transfer is avoidable, then a separate provision of the Bankruptcy Code gives trustees power to recover the property from the initial transferee or any subsequent transferee who received the property directly or indirectly from the initial transferee. 11 U.S.C. §550(a). In cases where trustees seek to recover property from subsequent transferees located outside the United States who received the property from transferors also located outside the United States, the question arises whether the Bankruptcy Code's fraudulent transfer recovery provision reaches that transaction — in other words, whether §550(a) applies extraterritorially to allow trustees to recover property from foreign subsequent transferees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued an opinion in In re Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Case No. 17-2992 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2019) (BLMIS) concluding that trustees can pursue recovery from foreign subsequent transferees who received property in transactions that occurred entirely outside the United States. The opinion reversed two lower court rulings and arguably conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on extraterritoriality of U.S. legislation.
Extraterritoriality and Fraudulent Transfer
Courts are divided on the issue of whether the fraudulent transfer recovery provision applies extraterritorially. In re CIL Ltd., 582 B.R. 46, 92-93 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) (collecting cases); see also, R. Antonoff et al., New York Bankruptcy Courts Grapple With Territorial Limits of U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Pratt's J. Bankr. L. 185 (June 2018). Most cases hold that it does not apply extraterritorially. See, In re CIL Ltd., 582 B.R. at 95-96. Other cases allowed recovery from foreign subsequent transferees in certain circumstances. See, In re Arcapita Bank B.S.C.(c), 575 B.R. 329 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017); In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 543 B.R. 127 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016). The rulings are generally based upon two principal doctrines: 1) The presumption against extraterritoriality; and 2) international comity.
The presumption against extraterritoriality provides that the reach of U.S. legislation applies only domestically unless a contrary congressional intent is apparent. See, RJR Nabisco v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2100 (2016); Morrison v. Nat'l Australian Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 255 (2010). “When a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.” Morrison, 561 U.S. at 255. To determine if a statute applies extraterritorially, courts conduct a two-part analysis. First, courts determine whether the statue “gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially.” RJR Nabisco, 136 S. Ct. at 2101. If it does, the inquiry ends there. In re CIL Ltd., 582 B.R. at 83-84. If not, then courts look to the statute's focus and the facts of the case to determine whether the conduct the statute regulates occurred domestically or not.
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?