Delaware Bankruptcy Insider:
Be In The Know

About This Blog


The Delaware Bankruptcy Insider is a premier blog designed to bring its readers a comprehensive analysis of the latest Delaware corporate bankruptcy news and rulings.  Brought to you by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Get Updates By Email

Topics

Judges

Recent Posts

Helpful Links


Federal Courts App
 (iTunes)
Federal Courts App (Google Play)
The Bankruptcy Code
Delaware Bankruptcy Court                                                                          Delaware Bankruptcy Court - Local Rules and Orders
Delaware District Court
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. Supreme Court
The United States Courts
Office of the United States Trustee for the Third Circuit
Delaware Bankruptcy American Inn of Court

For more information


Karen B. Skomorucha Owens, Esq.
(302) 504-3725
kowens@ashby-geddes.com

Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1150
(302) 654-1888               

Showing 6 posts in Fraudulent Transfers.

Third Circuit Rules That Transfers By Non-Debtors Are Immune From Avoidance As Fraudulent Transfers

Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 879 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2018)

In an Opinion that may also have repercussions in bankruptcy law, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. that transfers by a non-debtor cannot be fraudulent under title 6, section 1304 of the Delaware Code (the “Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act” or “DUFTA”).  Notwithstanding that the transfers at issue were allegedly orchestrated by a debtor with the express purpose of defrauding a creditor and notwithstanding the transferor’s intentional and knowing participation in the alleged scheme, the Third Circuit found the allegations insufficient to state a claim of a transfer “by a debtor,” and, accordingly, held that the language of DUFTA constrained it from finding a fraudulent transfer under the statute.  The Third Circuit noted its holding should also apply to fraudulent transfer claims under the Bankruptcy Code because DUFTA and section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code are “virtually a carbon copy” and “the result under Delaware law should be the same as the outcome under the Bankruptcy Code.”  879 F.3d at 86 (citation omitted). Read More ›

Two Clear-Cut Decisions of the Supreme Court – Narrowing Both Section 546(e)’s Securities Safe Harbor in Merit and the Standard of Review for Non-Statutory Insider Determinations in U.S. Bank

Merit Mgmt. Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 583 U.S. __ (2018)

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. __ (2018)

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous holding in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.  The Opinion, delivered by Justice Sotomayor, addressed a Congressional limitation placed on a trustee’s power to avoid certain transfers, such as preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547 or constructively fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B).  Additionally, on March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court issued another unanimous Opinion in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, delivered by Justice Kagan with concurrences filed by Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor.  The narrow issue before the U.S. Bank Court was the correct standard of appellate review to be applied to a bankruptcy court’s determination of whether a particular person qualifies as a non-statutory insider. Read More ›

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Holds Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Does Not Bar a Litigation Trust, as a Creditor-Assignee, From Asserting State Law Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims

PAH Litig. Trust v. Water Street Healthcare Partners, L.P. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), No. 15-51238 (KG), 2016 WL 3611831 (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2016)

In rendering this Opinion and permitting a post-confirmation trust to pursue state law constructive fraudulent transfer claims against two former shareholders of debtor Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. (“Physiotherapy”), the Honorable Kevin Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court eschewed the recent holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code preempts not only state law fraudulent transfer claims brought by trustees in bankruptcy, but also those brought by creditors. Read More ›

Court Addresses Standards for Insolvency, Piercing the Corporate Veil Under Delaware Law, Avoiding Alleged Fraudulent Transfers, and More

Burtch v. Opus, LLC (In re Opus East, LLC), Adv. Proc. No. 11-52423 (MFW), 2015 WL 1404959 (Bankr. D. Del. March 23, 2015)

In this Opinion, Judge Mary F. Walrath addressed 67 counts brought by a chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) against former fiduciaries of the debtor and related business entities.  The Trustee alleged theories of piercing the corporate veil, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, successor liability, avoidance of fraudulent and preferential transfers, unjust enrichment, disallowance and equitable subordination of claims, revocation of certificate of dissolution, imposition of constructive trust, tortious interference with contract, conversion and conspiracy to commit conversion.  After trial on the merits, Judge Walrath granted partial judgment and pre-judgment interest in favor of the Trustee on certain fraudulent transfer and preferential transfer counts against two defendants, and granted related relief to allow the Trustee to revoke a certificate of dissolution against one of the affected defendants, and to disallow the claims of both affected defendants pursuant to section 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code pending return of the avoided transfers. Judge Walrath granted judgment to defendants on the remaining counts. Read More ›

Transferee’s Knowledge of Debtor’s Intent Not Relevant For Fraudulent Transfer Claim For Actual Intent To Defraud

SB Liquidation Trust v. Preferred Bank (In re Syntax-Brillian Corp.), Nos. 13-1373, 13-1959, 2014 WL 3893292 (3d Cir. Aug. 11, 2014)

In these consolidated appeals stemming from a 2011 Bankruptcy Court decision, the Third Circuit vacated the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of certain fraudulent transfer claims against appellee Preferred Bank because the debtor’s intent determines whether a fraudulent transfer claim may be maintained, not the transferee-defendant’s knowledge of the debtor’s intent.  However, the Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of all other claims. Read More ›

Unconscionability Claim Dismissed; Fraudulent Transfer Claim Survives

Ritz Camera & Image, L.L.C. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (In re Ritz Camera & Image, L.L.C.), Adv. No. 12-50986 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 4, 2014)

This Memorandum Opinion opines on a routine motion to dismiss federal bankruptcy and state law claims asserted by a chapter 7 trustee against defendant Canon U.S.A., Inc. ("Canon").  The Honorable Kevin Gross dismissed the trustee’s claims for unconscionability, economic duress, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, but denied dismissal of the trustee’s fraudulent transfer claims. Read More ›