United States: Purchaser Of Trade Claims Takes Subject To Disallowance Based On Sellers' Failure To Repay Preference Liability

On May 4, 2012, in the KB Toys case, Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware disallowed certain trade claims purchased on the secondary market because the sellers of those claims had not repaid their preference liability.1 In so ruling, the court concluded that Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code—which provides for the disallowance of any claim of any entity that is a transferee of a preferential or fraudulent transfer unless it has repaid the transferred amount to the bankruptcy estate—imprints a "taint" on the trade claim that travels with the claim into the hands of subsequent purchasers.2 The court rejected the analysis from 2007 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Enron that concluded on appeal (in reversing the bankruptcy court) that disallowance pursuant to Section 502(d) created a "personal disability" that did not transfer with claims when they are sold to good faith purchasers on the open market.3

The Bankruptcy Court's Analysis

ASM Capital, L.P. and ASM Capital II, L.P. (collectively, "ASM") purchased certain trade claims from trade creditors (the "Original Trade Creditors") whose provision of goods or services gave rise to the claims. The liquidating trustee brought preference actions against the Original Trade Creditors—in most cases after but in one case before ASM purchased the claims—and obtained default or summary judgments that established the Original Trade Creditors' preference liability. The trustee then sought to disallow the trade claims held by ASM pursuant to Section 502(d) on the grounds that the previous holders of those claims, the Original Trade Creditors, had not repaid their preference liability.4

The bankruptcy court framed the issue as "whether the purchaser of a trade claim holds the purchased claim subject to the same rights and disabilities, and is subject to Bankruptcy Code § 502(d) challenge, as is the original holder of the claim."5 The court initially focused on the language of Section 502(d), which provides in relevant part: "[T]he court shall disallow any claim of any entity . . . that is a transferee of a transfer avoidable under section . . . 547 . . . of this title, unless such entity or transferee has paid the amount . . . ." Because courts had disagreed about the plain meaning of this section,6 the bankruptcy court also looked to the legislative history and rationale of the previous cases to guide its analysis.

With respect to the legislative history, the bankruptcy court determined that Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code is derived from Section 57g of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (repealed 1978). The court interpreted Section 57g as establishing the basis for allowance or disallowance of particular claims—focusing on the claims themselves as opposed to the holders of the claims. This supported its thesis that Section 57g of the old Bankruptcy Act (and thus its successor, Section 502(d) of the current Bankruptcy Code) provided a disability that traveled with the claim from seller to buyer.7

The bankruptcy court also found persuasive two New York bankruptcy court opinions—In re Metiom and the bankruptcy court's opinion (subsequently reversed) in Enron. The bankruptcy court adopted the Metiom court's view that Section 502(d) provided a defense to the claim that "cannot be altered by the claimant's subsequent assignment of the claim to another entity . . . ."8 Rather, the prospective assignees must consider these possible defenses when they negotiate the terms of assignment of the claims.9 The bankruptcy court also extensively quoted the Enron bankruptcy court's opinion and highlighted its view that a transfer of a claim does not change the character of the claim itself, but rather merely substitutes parties.10

Rejection of the District Court's Enron opinion from the Southern District of New York

The Bankruptcy Court in the KB Toys case then turned its analysis to the district court opinion in Enron. It first recognized that, based on its plain reading, the district court ruled that Section 502(d) imposes a personal disability on the claimant—not the claim—and thus the personal disability does not travel with the claim to a new holder. In addition, the Enron district court opined that the purpose of Section 502(d) "would not be served if a claim in the hands of a claimant could be disallowed even where the claimant never received the preference to begin with, and as a result, could not be coerced to return it."11

The KB Toys court then discussed how the Enron district court buttressed its opinion with an analysis that distinguished between an "assignment" of a claim and a "sale" of a claim. When a claim is assigned, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor, and is subject to all the defenses that could have been asserted to defeat the claim in the assignor's hands. By contrast, when a claim is sold, the buyer takes free of any personal disabilities of the seller.12 Thus, whether the disability of Section 502(d) travels with the claim to the next holder turns on whether the claim is assigned (disability travels) as opposed to sold (disability does not travel). The Enron district court thus stressed that "sales of claims on the open markets are indisputably sales."13

The KB Toys bankruptcy court fundamentally disagreed with the Enron district court's "assignment" versus "sale" analysis. It first noted that these concepts are not easily distinguishable and that neither is defined in the Bankruptcy Code. Next, to emphasize its rejection of that opinion, it cited multiple articles from commentators that essentially contended that the assignment-versus-sale analysis not only introduced a novel distinction that ignores the interchangeability of those terms, but also did not provide any clear guidance for market participants going forward. And even if one could "distinguish between an assignment and a sale, the exercise, in this context, is unhelpful and unrevealing of the appropriate outcome."14

Having rejected the assignment-versus-sale analysis, the bankruptcy court turned to concerns of potential disruption of the distressed debt markets. In this regard, the court took the view that claims traders are sophisticated players that are capable of performing due diligence, but in any event should understand and account for the risk that avoidance actions could give rise to a defense to a claim. Indeed, the court stated that the notion that disallowance of claims in the hands of a purchaser under Section 502(d) would upset the distressed debt market is "a hobgoblin without a house to haunt."15

The court then concluded that ASM's claims must be disallowed because of the existing preference liability of the Original Trade Creditors. It noted that the debtors' statement of financial affairs had listed the prepetition payments during the preference period, thereby putting ASM on constructive, if not actual, notice of the Original Trade Creditors potential preference liability and corresponding risk of disallowance of the trade claims under Section 502(d). ASM could have uncovered this risk with a modicum of due diligence and priced the trades accordingly or obtain, as it did in some of the trades, an indemnity from the Original Trade Creditor.16

The Bottom Line

The Delaware bankruptcy court has found that a buyer of trade claims takes subject to the disability of Section 502(d). If a trade claim is subject to disallowance in the seller's hands based on its failure to return an avoidable transfer, then the buyer will take the trade claim subject to that same risk arising from the seller's preference liability. Claims buyers will have to rely on their own due diligence efforts and indemnities in the purchase agreement, or simply take the risk that a trade claim might be disallowed under Section 502(d) (and discount the price accordingly).

Of critical importance, the Enron district court ruled that the assignment-versus-sale analysis also applied when a claim that was subject to equitable subordination in the hands of a bad actor was transferred to another party that had not engaged in misconduct. In other words, the Enron district court held that a good faith purchaser of claims takes free of any equitable subordination risk that may have existed while the seller held the claims.17 Given the Delaware bankruptcy court's fundamental disagreement with the Enron district court's assignment-versus-sale analysis and given its overall embrace of the reasoning of the Enron bankruptcy court (with little deference paid to the Enron district court's criticism of that decision), one could reasonably expect that the Delaware bankruptcy court would likewise follow the Enron bankruptcy court and hold that claims in the hands of a buyer may be equitably subordinated to the same extent as they would be in the hands of the seller.

That said, the bankruptcy court did allow that its analysis applied only to trade claims purchased from the original holders and it made "no determination about whether the same result should ensue in circumstances involving other types of transferred claims." It specifically noted that drafters of the Bankruptcy Code often give special protection to transfers in "public markets."18 Moreover, part of its analysis concerned the constructive (if not actual) notice imputed to the buyer of the trade claims given the information that was available in the schedules. Thus, the door remains open for the Delaware bankruptcy court to reach a different result with respect to (i) transfers of notes, bonds, bank debt and other such instruments, and (ii) transfers that occurred prepetition or in other circumstances where information concerning the disability was not available.


1. In re KB Toys, Inc., 2012 WL 1570755 (Bankr. D. Del. May 4, 2012).

2. Id., at *11.

3 Id. at *9-11 (analyzing Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs., LLC (In re Enron Corp.), 379 B.R. 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)). WilmerHale represented the Loan Syndications and Trading Association, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association as amici curiae in the Enron proceedings before the district court.

4 KB Toys, at *1-2.

5 Id., at *2.

6. Id., at *3 (comparing In re Metiom, Inc., 301 B.R. 634, 642-43 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003) and the bankruptcy court's decision in Enron Corp. v. Avenue Special Situations Fund II, LP (In re Enron Corp.), 340 B.R. 180, 194 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) with the district court's reversal of the bankruptcy court in Enron, 379 B.R. at 443.

7 Id., at *5.

8. Id., at *7 (quoting In re Metiom, 301 B.R. at 642-43).

9 Id.

10 Id., at *7-8 (analyzing In re Enron, 340 B.R. at 198-99).

11. Id., at *9 (quoting In re Enron, 379 B.R. at 443).

12. Enron, 379 B.R. at 435-36.

13 Id., at 446 n. 104.

14. KB Toys, at *9.

15 Id., at *10.

16 Id.

17 Enron, 379 B.R. at 442.

18 KB Toys, at *10 n.14.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions