11 U.S.C. § 764 — Voidable transfers
submitted 48 years ago by Pub. L. 95-598 to r/title-11-BANKRUPTCY · 222 words · no verdicts yet
A translation hasn’t been published for this section yet. The official text below is complete and authoritative.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, any transfer* by the debtor* of property that, but for such transfer, would have been customer property, may be avoided by the trustee, and such property shall be treated as customer property, if and to the extent that the trustee avoids such transfer under section 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, or 724(a) of this title. For the purpose of such sections, the property so transferred shall be deemed to have been property of the debtor, and, if such transfer was made to a customer or for a customer’s benefit, such customer shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been a creditor*.
Notwithstanding sections 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, and 724(a) of this title, the trustee may not avoid a transfer made before seven days after the order for relief, if such transfer is approved by the Commission by rule or order, either before or after such transfer, and if such transfer is—
a transfer of a commodity contract entered into or carried by or through the debtor on behalf of a customer, and of any cash, securities, or other property margining or securing such commodity contract; or
the liquidation of a commodity contract entered into or carried by or through the debtor on behalf of a customer.
Source credit: (Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2618; Pub. L. 97–222, § 17, July 27, 1982, 96 Stat. 240; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 487, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 383; Pub. L. 111–16, § 2(9), May 7, 2009, 123 Stat. 1607.)
- 1978Enacted · Pub. L. 95-598 · 92 Stat. 2618
- 1982Amended · Pub. L. 97-222 · 96 Stat. 240
- 1984Amended · Pub. L. 98-353 · 98 Stat. 383
- 2009Amended · Pub. L. 111-16 · 123 Stat. 1607
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 95-598 on 1978-11-06.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case