Appendix II NEW VALUE CIRCUIT COMPARISON

JurisdictionUnited 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT