In the recent decision of Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.), 2017 WL 75750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2017), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a preference complaint filed by a trustee of chapter 7 debtor headquartered in Israel, where the payment was made from the debtor’s Israeli bank to an Israeli supplier. The Court held that Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code does not have extraterritorial effect and the transfer did not originate in the U.S.
Within 90 days before bankruptcy, the debtor wired money from the debtor’s Israeli bank account to the supplier’s Israeli bank account, on account of an antecedent debt. The chapter 7 trustee sued the supplier to avoid and recover the alleged preferential payment. The supplier asserted that Section 547 could not be applied extraterritorially.
Judge Bernstein observed that the “presumption against extraterritoriality” is a “longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” In Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), the United States Supreme Court outlined a two-step approach to determine whether the presumption forecloses a claim.
First, the court asks “whether the statute gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially.” If not, the court must turn to the second step to determine if the litigation involves an extraterritorial application of the statute. Second, the court determines “whether the case involves a domestic application of the statute, . . . by looking to the statute’s ‘focus.’ . . . [I]f the conduct relevant to the focus occurred in a foreign country, then the case involves an impermissible extraterritorial application regardless of any other conduct that occurred in U.S. territory.”
In applying this analysis, the S.D.N.Y. bankruptcy court first held that the avoidance provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (including Section 547) do not apply extraterritorially. In so holding, the Court disagreed with the Fourth Circuit’s decision in French v. Liebmann (In re French), 440 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 2006), which held that Congress intended international application of U.S. fraudulent transfer law.
Next, the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court ruled that the determination of whether the case involves a domestic or extraterritorial application of section 547 depends on whether the initial transfer came from the United States. Because the transfer here occurred between a U.S. transferor headquartered in Israel and an Israeli transferee through Israeli bank accounts, the transfer occurred in Israel, and was not domestic.
Therefore, the court concluded that it could not be avoided, and dismissed the trustee’s preference complaint.
Carl D. Neff is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP. You can reach Carl at (302) 622-4272 or at email@example.com.