The trustee argued that, as of the petition date, the creditors had not decided whether or not to assume their existing agreements with the debtor.And, because the hypothetical liquidation analysis of § 547(b)(5) must be conducted as of the petition date, the trustee argued that the defendants should be in no better position than general unsecured creditors.These sources may not be accurate, complete, or up-to-date.Cortera makes no representations or warranties regarding, and assumes no responsibility for, the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the information contained herein.
Such losses can be fatal for fund managers like AQR, since sophisticated investors pay them big fees for exceptional performance and, understandably, have little patience for anything less."You can still be dead wrong as a quant, but you're dead wrong if the average result doesn't hold.
Post-petition, Roth received a partial payment for the services through Friedman’s first-day wage motion.
Friedman’s then brought a preference action against Roth.
Therefore, the defendants are subject to a different standard than those creditors without the same statutory protections.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that allowing the trustee to avoid pre-petition payments in this setting, would undermine the statutory protections afforded to creditors under §365 and §1110. made preferential payments to Roth Staffing Companies L. After receiving the transfers, but prior to the petition date, Roth provided Friedman’s with additional services in an amount greater than the transfers.