%1

First enacted during the Great Depression, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA)[1] in part sought to protect the suppliers of fruits and vegetables who had been left unpaid when purchasers went bankrupt. The PACA was further strengthened in 1984 when it was amended to include statutory trust protections for unpaid suppliers. The new requirements for purchasers of fruits and vegetables included a requirement to hold any proceeds derived from the sale of fruits and vegetables in trust for the benefit of the supplier.

It is been over a year since the unusual involuntary bankruptcy case of In re Scandia Seafood (New York) Inc. was tried on a motion by the assignee in an assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC) to dismiss, and for sanctions against the petitioning creditors and their counsel.[1] What made the case unusual was that it consisted of an involuntary bankruptcy against a debtor that had been liquidating in state court under an ABC for 117 days.

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the discharge of debts “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.”[1] Two decades ago, the Supreme Court clarified that “[t]he word ‘willful’ modifies the word ‘injury,’ indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.”[2] In the wake of Geiger, circuits have agreed that a debt

A struggling real estate developer decided to do some asset-planning and transferred his partial interest in two properties to his wife as tenancy-by-the-entirety.[1] Three years later, he filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed the two properties as exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3) and Hawaii state law.[2] At the 11 U.S.C.

At what point does the policy of bankruptcy, a discharge that strongly favors the honest-but-unfortunate individual debtor, yield to creditor protections from fraudulent debtor behavior? This is a question the Supreme Court recently considered in its decision in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling.[1]

Case Background

The Bernie Madoff investment scandal unleashed a slew of lawsuits, and at first glance, SPV OSUS Ltd. v. UBS AG[1] may seem like just another drop in the bucket. However, this case is notable for its expression of the Second Circuit’s rather extraordinary view of “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction. This article reviews the case and analyzes the court’s ruling.

From Ponzi Victim to Plaintiff: The Facts

On Feb. 27, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Merit Management Group LP v FTI Consulting Inc.[1] The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that if a transferee is seeking the protection of the § 546(e) securities safe harbor, a court must look to the overarching transfer the trustee seeks to avoid under one of the substantive avoidance statutes, and not the component parts that together make up the transfer.

Editor's Note: Don is the Communications Manager for the Mediation Committee, and recipient of this year's Committee Leader of the Year for his work in 2017. We thank Don for his continued efforts and support!

Millenia ago, advanced civilizations flourished around the Mediterranean, across east Asia, and in portions of the Western Hemisphere. Mediterranean and east Asia civilizations communicate and trade along the Silk Road, but they remain isolated from the Western Hemisphere.