Civil Rights
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.
Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.
Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.
Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.
Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.
Mansa Musa was the ruler of the Mali Empire in West Africa. Details recorded here should be sourced; unknown information is left blank.
MORE →Reflects the personal views, recollections, and perspective of the author, Mike Davis.
This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985
| Part of a series on |
| Insolvency |
|---|
| Core concepts |
| Insolvency processes |
| Officials & tribunals |
| Claimants & rights |
| Avoidance regimes & offences |
| Security interests |
| International & cross-border |
| By country & region |
An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference.[1]
The law on unfair preferences varies from country to country, but characteristically, to set a transaction or payment aside as an unfair preference, the liquidator will need to show that:
In most countries, an application to have a transaction set aside as a preference can only be made by the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy, as the person making the payment must be in bankruptcy, and thus they are not normally liable to lawsuits from other creditors.
The effect of a successful application to have a transaction declared as an unfair preference varies. Inevitably, the creditor which received the payment or assets has to return it to the liquidator. In some countries, the assets are treated in the normal way, and may be taken by any secured creditors who have a security interest which catches the assets (characteristically, a floating charge).[4] However, some countries have "ring-fenced" recoveries of unfair preferences so that they are made available to the pool of assets for unsecured creditors.
An unfair preference has some of the same characteristics as a fraudulent conveyance,[5] but legally they are separate concepts.[6] There is not normally any requirement to prove an intention to defraud to recover assets under an unfair preference application. However, similar to fraudulent conveyance applications, unfair preferences are often seen in connection with asset protection schemes that are entered into too late by the putative bankrupt.
Many jurisdictions provide for an exception in the case of transactions entered into in the ordinary course of business with a view to keeping the company trading, and such transactions are usually either validated or presumed to be validated.
A preference in U.S. federal bankruptcy law[7] is a transfer of property by a debtor to its creditor, on account of a pre-existing debt, that is made while the debtor is insolvent[8] and gives the creditor more than it would obtain in a liquidation of the debtor's assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. It is primarily a creature of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code,[9] although some states have similar state laws. If the preferential transaction takes place within a specified period of time before the filing of bankruptcy by or on behalf of the debtor, then the debtor's trustee in bankruptcy is authorized to recover the property preferentially transferred. The mechanism of recovery is the avoidance of the transfer.[10] After such avoidance, the recovered property becomes property of the bankruptcy estate.[11] The period is usually 90 days. However, if the preferential transfer is made to an "insider," then the period is one year. An "insider" is generally a relative or one who has the ability to control the activities of the debtor.[12] The Bankruptcy Code provides some exemptions from these rules to accommodate transfers intended to be contemporaneous, made in the ordinary course of business or to the extent they are made for new value, and others.[13]
All of the following examples assume that the requirements for a preference that are set out above exist at the time the transfer is made.
Under Swiss law, creditors who hold a certificate of unpaid debts against the debtor, or creditors in a bankruptcy, may file suit against third parties who have benefited from unfair preferences or fraudulent transfers by the debtor prior to a seizure of assets or a bankruptcy.[citation needed]
Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.
An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference.
Preference is a term used in scientific literature. Preference may also refer to: Preference (economics), as the term is used in economics Preferans, the Russian version of the card game, Préférence Préférence, a card game played in Austria, Hungary and the West Balkans Preferences mag, French gay periodical usually styled PREF mag Preferred stock, preference stock or preference shares, a form of corporate equity ownership Unfair preference, a legal term In computing, the computer configuration or preferences of the software
Re Yagerphone Ltd [1935] 1 Ch 392 was a United Kingdom insolvency law decision relating to unfair preferences and the proceeds of any claims by a liquidator for unfair preferences, and in particular determining the priority of claims between the general body of creditors and the holder of a floating charge. The case held that because the power to challenge a transaction as an unfair preference was a statutory right vested in the liquidator alone, the proceeds of any action were not "property of the company" and as such they were not caught be a floating charge which was expressed to include after acquired property (distinguishing Re Anglo-Austrian Printing & Publishing Union [1895] 2 Ch 891). Bennett J held that the proceeds were impressed by a statutory trust for the general body of creditors.
Bryant & Ors v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case confirmed the abolition of the 'peak indebtedness rule' for Australian corporate liquidations. The Full Federal Court had previously condemned the rule, and the High Court chose to uphold the appeals court's decision. The peak indebtedness rule, was a previously applied common law rule that operated where a liquidator needed to identify unfair preference payments in a situation where the liquidated company and its creditor had an ongoing business account with each other (for example, an ongoing service contract). The rule allowed a liquidator to calculate the amount of an unfair preference payment by first, (1) identifying the highest amount of debt owed by the company to the creditor in the last 6 months, and then (2) assessing how much this indebtedness had been reduced by the date of the liquidation. The unfair preference at law would then be determined by obtaining the difference between these two figures. The High Court decided that Pt 5.7B of the Corporations Act didn't incorporate the common law 'peak indebtedness rule'. It additionally held that whether a 'transaction is, for commercial purposes, an integral part of a continuing business relationship' under s588FA(3)(a) involves a factual inquiry about the 'business character' of the transaction. Some of the transactions were found to have formed part of the continuing business relationship, while others occurred after the business relationship had finished, and so did not. It was additionally held that to be an 'unfair preference' the 'deemed single transaction' needed to reduce the indebtedness of the liquidated company to its creditor. On the case's facts, the net indebtedness of the liquidated company to its creditor increased, so no finding of an unfair preference was made.
Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.
MORE →Mae Jemison, aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1992.