  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
In Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Memory (In re Martin), 184 B.R. 985 (M.D. Ala. 1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 1996), a release from a contingent obligation, such as a guarantee on a debt, cannot constitute new value. The court's ruling relies on Nordberg v. Arab Banking Corp (In re Chase & Sanborn Crop.), 904 F.2d 588 (11th Cir. 1990). In Miller v. Bodek & Rhodes, Inc. (In re Adelphia Automatic Sprinkler Co.), 184 B.R. 224 (E.D. Pa. 1995), the landlord's grant of a lease extension in exchange for the debtor's past due lease payments constituted new value because the extension created an entirely new leasehold with the appurtenant benefit of the debtor being able to remain in the property for an extended period of time. However, because there was no evidence on the fair market value of the lease extension, the district court remanded the case and instructed the bankruptcy court to make such a finding.
In Steege v. AT & T (In re Superior Toy & Manufacturing Co.), 183 B.R. 826 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995), the creditor's ability to revoke a non-exclusive license to use copyrighted designs does not constitute new value. Since the creditor had already given the debtor the right to use its designs there was no new value. In Stevenson v. Leisure Guide of America, Inc. (In re Shelton Harrison Chevrolet, Inc.), 202 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2000), the delivery of manufacturers statements of origin for already delivered vans did not constitute "new value" for purposes of contemporaneous exchange exception to trustee's avoidance action.
In Gray v. Oppenheimer & co. (In re Molten Metal Technology, Inc.), 262 B.R. 172 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2001), the court analyzed the services and contract between the Debtor and its investment banking firm which was the defendant in a preference action in order to determine whether the payment was substantially contemporaneous with the value for which it was extended. In Harbour v. ABX Enterprises, Inc. (In re APS Holding Corp.), 282 B.R. 795 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002), the Court provides an interesting discussion of the intent requirement under (c)(1). In Janas v. Marco Crane & Rigging Co. (In re JWJ Contracting Co.), 287 B.R. 501 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002), aff'd, 371 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2004), because the creditor had delivered an effective lien waiver in return for a check that failed to clear, the creditor could not claim that the "lien release" it gave at the time of delivery of a subsequent cashiers check qualified as "new
