Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As a general rule, the Bankruptcy Code provides that prepetition trade creditors receive distribution on their claims, if any, in a Chapter 11 case only in connection with a Chapter 11 plan.
However, over the years, courts recognized some suppliers were viewed as critical by the debtor and needed to be paid sooner in order for the debtor to continue to have access to the goods or services provided by those suppliers on credit. As such, a supplier of critical goods or services sometimes received all or partial payment of its prepetition claim in the early days of the case in exchange for its commitment to continue to provide those goods or services during the case on similar credit terms to the prepetition arrangement. However, over the years, at the end of the case, the debtor or liquidating trustee often sought to claw back payments the supplier received in the 90 days before the bankruptcy case as a preference. Of course, if the supplier had not received the prepetition payments, it likely would have insisted it be paid those amounts as a critical vendor after the filing. And perhaps those payments would have been paid along with the open accounts receivable amounts that were paid in exchange for continuing to do business with the debtor post-petition.
This issue was recently addressed by Judge John T. Dorsey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in Insys Liquidation Trust v. McKesson (In re Insys Therapeutics), Adv. Case No. 21-50176. Dorsey ruled that a supplier's receipt of payment under a critical vendor order does not bar the debtor or trustee from pursuing a preference claim to recover amounts paid prepetition to the vendor.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
A Q&A with conference speaker Ryan Phelan, a partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun and founder and moderator of legal blog PatentNext, to discuss how courts and jurisdictions are handling novel technologies, the copyrightability of AI-assisted art, and more.
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.