The April 13, 2015 issue of Forbes magazine features a detailed article about the role product identification fraud played in the Garlock bankruptcy,In re Garlock Sealing Techs., LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.
Suppliers of good and services (“trade creditors”) generally have no duty to determine whether their customers are operating an illegal enterprise. However a recent Fifth Circuit opinion presents an unprecedented “claw-back” risk facing trade creditors who unknowingly provide goods and services to a “Ponzi-scheme” enterprise.
The Janvey Opinion
This case is the product of yet another dispute in the extensive, multi-billion dollar fraud perpetrated by Tom Petters. In 2005, as the sole board member of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC (“PGW”), Petters directed the acquisition of Polaroid, which operated independently and legitimately as a going concern. In late 2007 and early 2008, Polaroid and other Petters companies began experiencing financial difficulties. In January 2008, PGW approached Ritchie about a loan and the next day, Ritchie loaned $31 million to PGW to pay debts of Polaroid and PGW.
In a striking decision earlier this year, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury’s findings of liability for breach of fiduciary duties and ‘deepening insolvency,’ and the award of $2.25 million in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against former directors and officers of The Lemington Home for the Aged, a Pennsylvania not-for-profit that is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
You have a claim against a corporation and/or its officers, but you find out that the corporation is dissolved and there is a successor corporation in its place that appears to be essentially the same corporation. Now what? In Bernard v. Kee Mfg.
As noted in Part 1 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently entered an order confirming that when a fraudulent transfer defendant is able to establish a defense pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Although the bankruptcy world has long been acquainted with Ponzi schemes, the courts have not clearly answered the question of how to distribute investors’ funds after a scheme fails – especially in the scenario where certain investors profit. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah recently weighed in on the issue in
The extent of a transferee’s knowledge in the context of fraudulent transfer claims under the Bankruptcy Code has been a frequent topic of discussion on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.
The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Wiand v. Lee clarifies longstanding issues relating to an equity receiver’s standing to pursue clawback claims for the benefit of the receivership estate under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”). See Wiand v. Lee, 2014 WL 2446084 (11th Cir. Jun.