Our friends at the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog have a recent post that provides a an insightful analysis of a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which involves a fraudulent transfer claim that was brought post-bankruptcy, against Campbell Soup, in connection with their spin-off of their Vlasic unit. The post also includes many links to original source materials. Though the transaction at issue was not set aside by the court, it was a very close call, and the decision provides a good case study of fraudulent transfers, and how a relatively small creditor can pursue the claim, even after a plan is confirmed.
UPDATE: Courtesy of Steve Jakubowski from the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog, here is clarification/amplification of the key to the above case:
Remember that a relatively small creditor cannot pursue a fraudulent transfer action once the debtor is in bankruptcy because all avoidance actions are considered derivative type actions that vest exclusively in the debtor’s estate. The unfairness of Moore v. Bay, in my view, is that a trustee in bankruptcy who steps into the shoes of this relatively small creditor is like a creditor on steroids who can avoid the entire transaction far beyond the creditor’s own relatively insignficant claim. A creditor cannot gain for itself the benefits of Moore v. Bay; those are reserved exclusively for the steroid-enhanced trustee using its “strong-arm” powers.