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.
Judges and Courts
- Delaware Court of Chancery
- Delaware District Court
- Delaware Supreme Court
- Judge Brendan L. Shannon
- Judge Christopher S. Sontchi
- Judge Kevin Gross
- Judge Kevin J. Carey
- Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein
- Judge Mary F. Walrath
- Judge Peter J. Walsh
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- United States Supreme Court
- Delaware District Court Disagrees with Bankruptcy Court’s Ruling and Holds That Committee’s Challenge Rights Survived Entry of the Sale Order and Consummation of Sale
- “Straddling the Line”: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Not All Tax Liabilities Incurred During a Debtor’s Petition Year are Eligible for Administrative Expense Priority
- Insider’s Scoop: Judge Silverstein Imposes Heightened Standard Regarding Appointment of Future Claims Representative
Security Interest Determined as of the Date of Petition, Not the Transaction, for Purposes of Stating a Preference Claim Under Section 547(b)(5)
Simplexity, LLC v. Sprint Corp. (In re Simplexity, LLC), 578 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017)
In this Opinion, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court addressed when a security interest is determined for purposes of stating a preference claim under section 547(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code. Distinguishing an earlier ruling by the Court in the context of insurance premium financing, Judge Kevin Gross ruled that security interests generally must be determined as of the petition date rather than the transaction date. Judge Gross also set forth guidelines for how the valuation should be conducted using an “add back” method.
Under… Read More
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… Read More
Decisions by Third Circuit and Delaware Bankruptcy Court Clarify that “Receipt” under Section 503(b)(9) Requires Physical Possession
Haining Wansheng Sofa Co., Ltd. v. World Imports Ltd. (In re World Imports, Ltd. et al.), No. 16-1357, 2017 WL 2925429 (3d Cir. Mar. 8, 2017) and In re SRC Liquidation, LLC, No. 15-10541 (BLS), 2017 WL 2992718 (Bankr. D. Del. July 13, 2017)
In two recent Opinions, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Delaware Bankruptcy Court clarified that the word “received” in section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code requires a showing that goods were delivered into the physical possession of a debtor or its agent within the 20 days before a debtor’s petition date (the “20-Day Period”). Under the… Read More
Casino Caribbean, LLC v. Money Ctrs. of Am., Inc. (In re Money Ctrs. of Am., Inc.), Adv. Nos. 14-50437 (CSS), 16-50410 (CSS), 2017 WL 775780 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 28, 2017)
In this Opinion, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court addressed for the first time whether tribal sovereign immunity bars preference actions against casinos operated by (or on behalf of) Indian tribes. After considering split authority from other jurisdictions, the Court ruled that it does, although the right to use preference liability defensively in support of a recoupment claim may still be preserved.
The facts underlying the Opinion concern preference claims brought… Read More
Set Off of Administrative Claim Against Preference Liability is Permissible and Not a “Disguised New Value Defense”
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Quantum Foods, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (In re Quantum Foods, LLC), No. 15-50254 (KJC), 2016 WL 4011727 (Bankr. D. Del. July 25, 2016)
In this Opinion, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court addressed a question that remained in the wake of the Third Circuit’s Opinion in Friedman’s: although post-petition goods and services may not be counted as subsequent new value under section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, may they still be used to offset alleged preference liability? See Friedman’s Liquidating Tr. v. Roth Staffing Co., LP (In re Friedman’s Inc.), 738… Read More
Court Dismisses Involuntary Chapter 11 Case on Findings of Bad Faith and Failure to Meet Standards under Section 303
In re Metrogate, LLC, No. 15-12593 (KJC), 2016 WL 3150177 (Bankr. D. Del. May 26, 2016), (with note regarding In re Diamondhead Casino Corp., No. 15-11647 (LSS), 2016 WL 3284674 (Bankr. D. Del. June 7, 2016))
In this Opinion, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court dismissed an involuntary chapter 11 case against Metrogate, LLC f/k/a Advance Realty Group, LLC (“Metrogate”) on findings that it failed to meet the standards under section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code and was filed in bad faith. Judge Kevin J. Carey’s ruling clarified statutory requirements under section 303 and confirmed bad faith as an independent ground… Read More
Third Circuit Holds that Minimum Threshold under Section 547(c)(9) Requires Transfer-by-Transfer Analysis
Slobodian v. U.S. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Net Pay Solutions, Inc.), No. 15-2833, 2016 WL 2731676 (3d. Cir. May 10, 2016)
In this precedential Opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) addressed whether multiple transfers may be aggregated for purposes of meeting the statutory minimum under section 547(c)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court affirmed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the “District Court”) that they may not be aggregated where the transfers are for the benefit of different creditors on distinct… Read More
Practice Point: Substance Matters – Recent Rulings Confirm and Clarify Pleading Standards under Section 547
THQ, Inc. v. Starcom Worldwide, Inc. (In re THQ, Inc.), No. 14-51079 (MFW), 2016 WL 1599798 (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 18, 2016).
Giuliano v. Haskett, (In re MCG Ltd. P’ship), No. 14-50536 (CSS), 545 B.R. 74 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 28, 2016).
Two recent rulings by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court confirm the well-known pleading standards that a preference complaint must do more than “merely parrot the language of section 547” to survive a motion to dismiss. The cases also clarify the type of particularized facts that must be alleged to state a claim under section 547.
In THQ, Inc. v. Starcom Worldwide, Inc…. Read More
Absent Other Unusual Factors, Evidence of Timing Range May Be Enough to Satisfy Burden Under Section 547(c)(2)(A)
Forman v. Moran Towing Corp. (In re AES Thames, LLC), Case No. 13-50395 (KJC), 2016 WL 853091 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 3, 2016)
In this Memorandum, evidence that payments made during the preference period fell within historical ranges was enough for Judge Kevin Carey to rule that the timing was “subjectively” ordinary under section 547(c)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, even though the average timing compared unfavorably to the parties’ historical dealings. The Court’s analysis sheds light on the “somewhat unique circumstances” in which a court may emphasize the importance of the range of payment timing for purposes of… Read More
In re Samson Resources, Corp., Case No. 15-11934 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 8, 2016)
The Boomerang Tube decision has already been followed by one other Delaware bankruptcy judge. In a letter ruling in In re Samson Resources Corp., Judge Christopher S. Sontchi agreed with, endorsed, and applied Judge Walrath’s… Read More