  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
terms of the industry as a whole.)
In re ABC-Naco, Inc., 483 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. Apr. 9, 2007) (Unsecured creditors could avoid as preferential transfers a debtor's payments for Microsoft software during the 90 days prior to its bankruptcy filing. Debtor's continued use of the software following the payments did not constitute "new value" pursuant to § 547(c)(4), because the software vendor did not have the power to revoke the debtor's software license in the event of default. Even if, upon nonpayment, the vendor could have caused Microsoft to revoke the debtor's software license, its forbearance from doing so did not constitute new value.)
Leidenheimer Baking Co., Ltd. v. Sharp (In re SGSM Acquisition Co., LLC), 439 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. Feb. 6, 2006) (None of debtor's pre-petition payments to suppliers qualified for ordinary course of business defense, but some such payments qualified for subsequent advance defense. Suppliers did not qualify for ordinary course of business defense because they did not offer admissible proof that the payments were made according to ordinary business terms under § 547(c)(2)(C). A series of payments and shipments had occurred, and, under subsequent advance defense pursuant to § 547(c)(4), suppliers were entitled to have excess new value cancel out prior payments still exposed as preferences. Supplier was also entitled to credit against preference liability for refund that supplier gave debtor for worthless goods that debtor returned during preference period.)
In re First Alliance Mortgage Company, 471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2006) (District court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Trustee's fraudulent transfer adversary proceeding against, and motion to subordinate the claim of, debtor's lender and underwriter. The secured lending agreement between the lender and the debtor was not in and of itself fraudulent, and payments of fully secured obligations arising from that agreement did not constitute fraudulent transfers because they did not diminish the assets available to satisfy other claims. Further, merely aiding and abetting debtor's fraud against its borrowers did not rise to the level of egregious inequitable conduct required to subordinate the claim of a non-insider pursuant to § 510(c).)
Pension Transfer Corp. v. Beneficiaries Under the Third Amendment to Fruehauf Trailer Corp. Ret. Plan No. 003 (In re Fruehauf Trailer Corp.), 444 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2006) (Plaintiff in a fraudulent transfer proceeding need not prove the precise value of the property received or relinquished when the totality of the circumstances establishes that the values are certainly not equivalent. Although the debtor received some immeasurable benefit from an amendment to its pension plan funded by pension surpluses, that benefit was not reasonably equivalent to the cost of the amendment, and the amendment was a
