“Reasonably equivalent value” as a defense to a fraudulent transfer suit “can be satisfied with evidence that the transferee (1) fully performed under a lawful, arm’s-length contract for fair market value, (2) provided consideration that had objective value at the time of the transaction, and (3) made the exchange in the ordinary course of the transferee’s business,” held the Supreme Court of Texas on April 1, 2016, in response to a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Janvey v. Golf Channel, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2016 WL 1268188, at *2 (Tex.
The Texas Supreme Court is poised to consider a significant fraudulent transfer case stemming from the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. The origins of Janvey v. Golf Channel date back to 2009. In the wake of Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the Northern District of Texas appointed a receiver for Stanford and his related entities. The receiver sued the Golf Channel (among others), claiming the nearly $6 million Stanford paid for advertising was a fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”).
When entrepreneurs decide to embark upon a new endeavor, they must first decide the form of entity to be used in conducting their business. Do they want to incorporate the business, and if so should they elect Subchapter S status? Would they be better served by forming a limited liability company, a limited liability partnership, or a general partnership? Each of these entities has its own beneficial characteristics when considering tax consequences, ease of operation, and potential liabilities of the individual entrepreneurs.
I previously commented on a controversial fraudulent transfer opinion issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Janvey v. The Golf Channel, 780 F.3d 641 (5th Cir.
In a surprise move, the Fifth Circuit vacated its recent, controversial Golf Channel opinion, potentially giving the Golf Channel a second chance in a case that seemed lost. As I discussed in my previous post, the Fifth Circuit recently held that the Golf Channel had to return over $5.9 million in payments it had received from Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford’s Stanford International Bank, pursuant
Is market value sufficient proof of reasonably equivalent value for purposes of the good-faith-for-value defense under Texas law? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified that question to the Texas Supreme Court on June 30, 2015, after vacating its earlier decision in Janvey v. The Golf Channel, Inc., 2015 WL 3972216, at *3 (5th Cir. June 30, 2015).
In a January 5, 2023 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the panel held the Just Energy bankruptcy court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the debtor’s suit to recover Winter Storm Uri payments made to ERCOT. The Fifth Circuit found the underlying issue—i.e., the propriety of ERCOT and PUCT’s pricing—to be precisely the type of controversy that should be decided in the manner carefully prescribed by the Texas legislature, and not be second-guessed by the bankruptcy court.
I previously commented on a controversial fraudulent transfer opinion issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Janvey v. The Golf Channel, 780 F.3d 641 (5th Cir.
The Texas Supreme Court, on June 20, 2014, issued its highly anticipated opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex. 2014). Ritchie involved a claim by a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation under the Texas receivership statute, seeking to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority shareholder’s interest in the corporation.
In some good news for commercial vendors, the Supreme Court of Texas recently ruled that payments for ordinary services provided to an insolvent customer are not recoverable as fraudulent transfers, even if the customer turns out to be a “Ponzi scheme” instead of a legitimate business.