July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
Fraudulent transfer plaintiffs be reminded: the heightened pleading standard in Rule 9(b) continues to create difficulty surviving a motion to dismiss actual fraudulent transfer claims. In In re Lyondell Chem. Co,[1] in the context of fraudulent transfer litigation following a leveraged buyout, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York reaffirmed that the Rule 9(b)
Chasing fraudsters is never easy. They always appear to be one step ahead and creditors, in addition to having to prove the fraudulent transaction, have to also find the money or assets and be able to recover them.
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provided further clarification regarding the defenses available to “mediate or immediate transferees” who receive an otherwise avoidable transfer.[1]
The Commercial Fraud Committee has had a very busy and prolific year, producing one book, two webinars, three newsletters, multiple case law eblasts, and the launching of a committee wide conference call program.
During this call, Geoffrey L. Berman discussed the ABI’s Commission Report to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, particularly its recommendations related to In Pari Delicto. In addition, the committee’s leadership discussed the various projects and presentations the committee is working on in the coming months.
“Let there be an end, a privacy, an obscure nook for me. I want to be forgotten even by God.”[1] This Browning verse would serve as an apt credo for many fraudsters looking to exit the game. The problem is that today, the exit always seems to include an “obscure nook” — and a few million dollars of other people’s money.
Recent cases suggest that broadcasters who advertise a debtor’s fraudulent business may face exposure to § 548 claims, as was addressed in Part 1 of this article. In Part 2, we address the second element of a broadcaster’s defense: the exchange of reasonably equivalent value in exchange for payments received by the broadcaster.
