Appendix II NEW VALUE CIRCUIT COMPARISON

• Jurisdiction: United States

Appendix II NEW VALUE CIRCUIT COMPARISON

CIRCUIT	HOLDING	CASE	COMMENT
FIRST (Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire)	New value must be unpaid to be used as a defense. __________ The First Circuit adopted the "emerging trend" among other courts that "new value defense is available despite payment if the payment was an avoidable transfer."	In re Keydata Corp., 37 B.R. 324 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983); In re Columbia Packing, 44 B.R. 613 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1984). __________ In re PMC Mktg. Corp., 518 B.R. 150, 158 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2014).
SECOND (New York, Connecticut, Vermont)	__________ Rejected majority rule and opined that there exists in the statute no requirement that new value remain unpaid so long as payment is by an otherwise avoidable transfer.	__________ In reMusicl and Holding Corp., 462 B.R. 66, 70 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001); In re Van Dyck/Columbia Printing, 289 B.R. 304 (D. Conn. 2003); In re Maxwell Newspapers, 192 B.R. 633 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996).	No circuit court cases.
	Other bankruptcy courts, however, have stated that the new value must remain unpaid.	In re Teligent, 315 B.R. 308 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004); In re Pameco Corp., 356 B.R. 327 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Enron Corp., 357 B.R. 32 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006).	In re Teligent suggests in dicta that new value must remain unpaid. Two bankruptcy court cases also state that new value must remain unpaid, one citing In re Teligent.
THIRD (Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania)	New value must be unpaid as of petition date to be used as a defense. __________ New value paid post-petition does not affect a creditor's new value defense.	In re New York City Shoes, 880 F.2d 679 (3d Cir. 1989) (dicta states new value must remain unpaid); In re Winstar Commc'n Inc., 554 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2009) (same). __________ In re Friedman S Inc., 738 F. 3d 547 (3d Cir. 2013).	Recent Delaware Bankruptcy Court cases distinguish In re New York City Shoes. See Jon Wahoshi v. American & Efrid Inc. (In re Pillowtex Corp.), 416 B.R. 123 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) (payment must not be from otherwise-unavoidable transfer and whether new value is unpaid is not required); In re Proliance Int'l Inc., 514 B.R. 426, 438 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014) (subsequent new value need not remain unpaid). However, Third Circuit recently confirmed that the new value must remain unpaid.
FOURTH (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia)	No requirement that new...