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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?