Bankruptcy Code 546(e) Safe Harbor: Invoking the Customer Defense in Avoidance Actions After Tribune II

Course Details
- smart_display Format
On-Demand
- signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level
- work Practice Area
Bankruptcy
- event Date
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
- schedule Time
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
- timer Program Length
90 minutes
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
This CLE course will guide counsel to commercial parties on the interpretation of the safe harbor provisions in Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) after the Second Circuit's decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., Case No. 13-3992 (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2019) (Tribune II). The webinar will also review other safe harbors in Section 546.
Faculty

Mr. Scott represents institutional lenders, bank groups, hedge funds and other creditors in out-of-court workouts and in-court bankruptcy proceedings. In the course of his practice, he also advises corporate clients on distressed asset sales and acquisitions and on structuring considerations in complex debt transactions.

Mr. Marchetti’s teaching and research interests are in the following areas: bankruptcy and reorganization, finance, secured transactions, commercial law, banking law, business associations, commercial transactions, contracts and law and economics. Before joining academia, he worked as in-house counsel at WestLB AG, which, at the time, was an international commercial bank with world-wide operations. While working at WestLB, Mr. Marchetti worked on capital markets transactions (including swaps, other derivatives and repos), chapter 11 bankruptcy matters and a wide variety of commercial finance transactions (including real estate finance, asset backed lending, lending to oil and gas companies and project finance). Before working at WestLB, he was an associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and at Thelen, Reid & Priest in New York City. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Marchetti served as a Judicial Law Clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Superior Court.

Mr. Hammer’s practice focuses on a broad range of creditors’ rights, netting, financial regulatory, bankruptcy, digital asset, and market infrastructure issues. He regularly advises clients regarding close-out netting rights under a variety of different U.S. insolvency regimes, including the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Securities Investor Protection Act, the New York Banking Law, and the Orderly Liquidation Authority title of the Dodd-Frank Act, and represents clients before federal regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations. His clients include financial institutions, clearinghouses, sovereigns, and end users. Mr. Hammer is frequently counsel to leading financial market trade associations and ad hoc coalitions on major industry initiatives and industry-standard opinions.
Description
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a trustee may not avoid prepetition certain transfers by or to specific kinds of entities. The list of protected entities include "financial institutions" and "financial participants," but under a 2017 Supreme Court decision, FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Mgmt. Gp. L.P., only if the financial institution is a transferee of the transfer the trustee seeks to avoid. This holding was interpreted as severely narrowing the safe harbor under Section 546(e) but left many questions unanswered.
However, on Dec. 19, 2019, the Second Circuit held that the debtor (Tribune) might be a "financial institution" when it is the "customer" of a financial institution that was acting as Tribune's "agent or custodian … in connection with a securities contract."
Tribune II has been heralded as potentially expanding the reach of Section 546(e) safe harbor. Many issues remain open because not every transfer involving a financial institution is protected and not every financial institution may qualify. Many believe that properly structured principal-agent relationships could bring more payments and distributions into the safety of Section 546(e).
Listen as this experienced panel discusses the importance of the Tribune II decision and how it has brought renewed viability to Section 546(e) safe harbor.
Outline
- Section 546(e)
- Protected payments, parties, contracts
- Leveraged buyouts
- FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Mgmt. Gp. L.P.
- Tribune II
- Defining "customer"
- Structuring the principal-agent relationship
- Review of Sections 546(f), (g), and (j)
Benefits
The panel will review these and other key issues:
- How did Tribune II limit and address the Merit decision?
- Does the specific type of "financial institution" matter under Section 546(e)?
- How should parties in leveraged buyouts structure payments?
- What questions did Tribune II leave open?
Related Courses

Chapter 11 Fundamentals: Debtor-In-Possession Financing and Use of Cash Collateral
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
Recommended Resources
Transforming CLE from a Requirement to a Career Advantage
- Learning & Development
- Career Advancement
- Talent Development
Beyond Law School: Tackling the Realities of Modern Legal Practice
- Learning & Development
- Business & Professional Skills
- Career Advancement