Tag Archives: Third Circuit

Third Circuit Addresses Issue of First Impression in Finding the Payee Irrelevant for Purposes of Applying Section 547(c)(9)’s Aggregate Value Threshold in In re Net Pay Solutions, Inc.

By Evan T. Miller, Esq.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed an issue of first impression – whether a Chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) could avoid multiple small-dollar payments to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) that the debtor (the “Debtor”) had made on behalf of multiple clients, on the basis that all of the payments were made to the same payee. Continue reading

‘Average Payment Time’ vs. ‘Range of Payment Statistics’: Judge Carey (Del.) Weighs in Favor of the Latter in In re AES Thames, LLC Preference Dispute

By Evan T. Miller, Esq.

Judge Carey recently ruled in favor of a defendant on a 547(c)(2) issue, notwithstanding that the Debtors paid the defendant more than six times later during the Preference Period than they had in the Historical Period. Continue reading

Badges of Fraud and the Imputation of Actual Fraudulent Intent – Chief Judge Shannon (Bankr. D. Del.) Issues Latest Order in Long-Running Syntax-Brillian Fraudulent Transfer Action

By Evan T. Miller, Esq.

In the latest memorandum order from SB Liquidation Trust v. Preferred Bank (In re Syntax-Brillian Corp.), Case No. 08-11407 (BLS), Adv. No. 10-51389 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del.), an adversary proceeding that has already spawned three opinions (including one from the Third Circuit), Chief Judge Shannon denied the defendant-bank’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss the complaint (as amended, the “Complaint”). Continue reading

Is Denial of Receipt Enough to Contest Service Under 12(b)(5)? Must a Preference Complaint Allege More Than Recipient, Transfer Date, and Amount to Satisfy Twombly/Iqbal? Judge Sontchi Clarifies Delaware’s View

By Evan T. Miller, Esq.

Proper service and the degree of complaint detail are recurring issues in avoidance action jurisprudence.  In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, at least, Judge Sontchi has provided guidance on both issues in an opinion that should be equally instructive to plaintiffs and defendants. Continue reading

How Much Control Must a Bank Exert to be Considered an Initial Transferee Under 11 U.S.C. § 550? Can Substantive Consolidation be Applied Nunc Pro Tunc to Help ‘Create’ an Avoidance Action? Chief Judge Frank (Bankr. E.D. Pa.) Provides an Answer in In re Universal Marketing, Inc.

By Evan T. Miller, Esq.

Chief Judge Frank of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued an opinion in Goldstein v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society (In re Universal Marketing, Inc.) that deals with certain issues not often seen in avoidance actions.  Specifically, the opinion touches upon the level of control or dominion that a bank must exercise over a disputed conveyance for purposes of determining whether it was an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. § 550. Continue reading

Chief Judge Stark (D. Del.) Issues a Pair of Opinions Addressing New Value, Ordinary Course of Business, and Earmarking Defenses (Part II)

By Evan T. Miller, Esq.

“Payment Plan” Payments Not Necessarily Ordinary

The second of Chief Judge Stark’s two September opinions is Prudential Real Estate v. Burtch (In re AE Liquidation, Inc.), 2015 WL 5301553 (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2015). Continue reading

Chief Judge Stark (D. Del.) Issues a Pair of Opinions Addressing New Value, Ordinary Course of Business, and Earmarking Defenses (Part I)

By Evan T. Miller, Esq.

The U.S. District Court for the District Court recently issued two opinions addressing lower court appeals which turned on the statutory defenses provided for in 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(c)(2) and (4), in addition to the availability of the “earmarking doctrine”. Continue reading