Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fraudulent Transfer Claims In Claw Back Litigation
While the number of bankruptcy cases has been trending down over the past year, and we have seen some positive economic activity, there are also predictions that long-term negative impacts could result in an increasing number of corporate restructurings and bankruptcy filings.
A common source of recovery for creditors in bankruptcy cases are litigation claims brought by a bankruptcy estate to claw back what is known in the bankruptcy world as "preferential" and "fraudulent" transfers. "Valuation," "solvency" and "insolvency" are commonly used terms in litigation stemming from bankruptcy cases involving these claims. This article focuses on the basics of fraudulent transfer claims and solvency analysis in the context of lawsuits where a plaintiff is seeking to recover payments made prior to the bankruptcy case being commenced, sometimes referred to as "claw back" litigation.
In connection with such litigation, plaintiffs are often required to prove that the debtor was insolvent at the time the transfer was made. Insolvency is an important element of a plaintiff's case, as it goes to the avoidability of transactions as either "preferential" or "fraudulent" (fraudulent in this context refers to circumstances where the recipient did not provide the debtor with reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer).
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?