Narrative Opinion Summary
The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Carnes and Barkett and District Judge Cohn, has revised its opinion from April 15, 2008, published at 524 F.3d 1175. Specifically, the revision involves the deletion of the first two sentences of the first full paragraph on page 1189, which are replaced with a clarification regarding Section 547(e)(2)(A). This section's primary purpose is identified as defeating the antecedent debt requirement under Section 547(b)(2) by designating transfers perfected within ten days as "made" at the time of the transfer, citing relevant case law and literature. The court denied the petition for panel rehearing concerning other issues raised, but this order does not impact the appellant's suggestion for rehearing en banc.
Legal Issues Addressed
Clarification of Section 547(e)(2)(A)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified the application of Section 547(e)(2)(A) by explaining its primary purpose is to address the antecedent debt requirement by treating transfers perfected within ten days as if they were made at the time of transfer.
Reasoning: Specifically, the revision involves the deletion of the first two sentences of the first full paragraph on page 1189, which are replaced with a clarification regarding Section 547(e)(2)(A).
Defeating the Antecedent Debt Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In this case, the court explained that the purpose of Section 547(e)(2)(A) is to defeat the antecedent debt requirement under Section 547(b)(2) by considering certain transfers as made at the time of transfer if perfected within ten days.
Reasoning: This section's primary purpose is identified as defeating the antecedent debt requirement under Section 547(b)(2) by designating transfers perfected within ten days as 'made' at the time of the transfer.
Denial of Petition for Panel Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the petition for a panel rehearing on issues other than the clarification of Section 547(e)(2)(A), indicating no further changes were warranted on those matters.
Reasoning: The court denied the petition for panel rehearing concerning other issues raised, but this order does not impact the appellant's suggestion for rehearing en banc.