  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
American Pad and Paper Co., 478 F.3d 546 (3rd Cir. Mar. 2, 2007) (Chapter 7 Trustee was time-barred from initiating avoidance actions more than two years after the petition date pursuant to § 546(a). The Trustee was not elected within the two years limitations period following the petition date, and the appointment of an interim trustee pursuant to § 701 within the two-year period is not one of the triggers for a one-year extension of the limitations period pursuant to § 546(a)(1)(B).)
Ford v. Skorich (In re Skorich), 482 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. Mar. 30, 2007) (Prepetition escrowing of proceeds from sale of property jointly owned by debtor and spouse, pursuant to order of state court in divorce case, was not a preference under § 547. Bankruptcy court had given spouse relief from stay to obtain a final divorce decree in state court, and that decree awarded spouse the entire amount of the proceeds held in the escrow account. Bankruptcy trustee argued that the transfer of the debtor's legal title in the property to the escrow agents was a preference. The court disagreed, finding that spouse was not a creditor under § 101(10) because she did not hold a claim under § 101(5) and that the transfer was not made on account of an antecedent debt. Spouse did not hold a claim because her interest in the property was not a right to payment.)
Collins v. Greater Atlantic Mortgage Corp. (In re Lazarus), 478 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. Jan. 9, 2007) (Refinancing mortgage perfected more than ten days after funding, outside the ten day safe harbor found at § 547(e)(2)(B), may be a preference. Relying on the earmarking doctrine, mortgagee argued that the property transferred was not an interest of the debtor in property under § 547(b) because the mortgage proceeds were used to pay-off the existing mortgage. Mortgagee, thus, argued that this was, in effect, a transfer of the mortgage from the first mortgagee to the second mortgagee. The court rejected this argument, finding that the second mortgage held a new mortgage on different terms from the first mortgage. Mortgagee also argued that creditors were not made worse off by the refinancing. The court found that proof of prejudice to other creditors was not required to establish a prejudice. Finally, mortgagee argued that the exception found in § 547(c)(1) prevented avoidance. The court disagreed, finding that the perfection of the mortgage was not a substantially contemporaneous exchange for new value because perfection occurred more than ten days after funding.)
Peltz v. Vancil (In re Bridge Information Sys., Inc.), 474 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. Jan. 10, 2007) (Payment made less than two months before Chapter 11 petition was filed was not preferential because it was not made on account of an antecedent debt. Recipient of payment was tenant with renewal options under lease. The allegedly preferential payment was to purchase those options not to
