  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
fraudulent transfer.)
In re Miller, 454 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. July 21, 2006) (At post-petition foreclosure sale of real property initiated by homeowner's association, purchaser without relief from stay or notice of bankruptcy may be protected by § 549(c). That exception to the automatic stay protects those who buy real property for its "present fair equivalent value," which is a more exacting standard that "reasonably equivalent value." Although the price a third-party purchaser pays at a pre-petition mortgage foreclosure sale is considered the per se "reasonably equivalent value" under § 548, under § 549(c) the court must analyze the value of the property, the interest purchased and the amount of and extent of remaining liens to determine whether a purchaser at a post-petition foreclosure sale paid the "present fair equivalent value.")
Herrington v. Grant (In re Paxton), 440 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2006) (Section 549, and not § 362, granted Bankruptcy Trustee power to set aside postpetition tax foreclosure sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay.)
Dzikowski v. Northern Trust Bank Of Florida, N.A. (In re Prudential of Florida Leasing, Inc.), 478 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2007) (Single satisfaction requirement of § 550(d) looked to federal common law and not to Florida state law to determine whether Trustee's fraudulent transfer claim had been satisfied in previous settlement with other defendants. State law was inapplicable because the doctrine of single satisfaction governs procedure rather than substantive law, application of Florida law would frustrate the equitable purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and the doctrine arises only when a bankruptcy court has authorized settlement of a federal cause of action in a core bankruptcy proceeding. Pursuant to federal common law, the lack of an up-front allocation of damages by settling parties is neither dispositive nor useful in determining whether the settlement has led to a single satisfaction of a trustee's claims against a non-settling obligor. The bankruptcy court must value the claims at issue, as in the settlement approval process pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019, or the valuation of a claim pursuant to § 502(c).)
Boyer v. Belavilas (In re Belavilas), 474 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2007) (Avoided fraudulent transfer could be recovered from custodian of Uniform Transfers to Minors Act ("UTMA") account because custodian was initial transferee for whose benefit transfer was made under § 550(a)(1). Although legal title to UTMA funds was in the children, parent-custodian used the funds for her own benefit by transferring them to a company she formed and controlled rather than for the children's welfare as required under UTMA.)
