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”). 

Finding out you missed an important deadline is the stuff nightmares are made of.  Even more so for attorneys, where letting a court imposed deadline pass without taking the requisite action may substantially hinder the rights of clients.  In 

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.

Many companies that file for bankruptcy protection have liabilities that cannot be definitively quantified as of the bankruptcy petition date. Such “unmatured,” “contingent,” “unliquidated,” or “disputed” debts could arise from, among other things: (i) causes of action that are being litigated at the time of a bankruptcy filing but have not resulted in a judgment; or (ii) claims against the company that exist prior to a bankruptcy filing but have not been asserted against the company in litigation or otherwise, let alone liquidated, as of the petition date.

While commencing a bankruptcy case is most commonly undertaken voluntarily by the debtor itself, the Bankruptcy Code gives certain creditors authority to force certain entities into chapter 11 or 7 bankruptcy.  Unfortunately for the unwilling chapter 11 or 7 debtor, so long as petitioning creditors meet the statutory requirements to commence an involuntary case, the would be debtor will have no choice but to resolve itself under the Bankruptcy Code.  This was the fate of the debtor in 

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).

Following the Texas Attorney General’s objection to the sale of RadioShack Corporation’s consumer data as an asset in its bankruptcy, 37 other state attorneys general and a large number of other consumer protection entities formally raised similar concerns. RadioShack, which filed for bankruptcy on February 5, 2015, revealed in a representative’s deposition on March 20, 2015 that it held personally identifiable consumer data of 117 million consumers, or 37% of the residential population of the United States.

Corporate financial uncertainties or troubles frequently require corporate directors to make difficult choices that affect shareholders, creditors and others having an interest in the corporation. In that situation, the question naturally arises: Do directors' duties change when a corporation is experiencing financial difficulties, is nearing insolvency or becomes insolvent? The short answer is that the fiduciary duties of corporate directors under Delaware and Texas corporate law do not change, but that the ultimate beneficiaries of those duties may shift.

A bankruptcy filing by a property owner may not be the only action that prevents foreclosure of a security interest in that property held by a secured creditor. In a growing list of cases, courts also have held the bankruptcy of a junior secured creditor with a lien on the property invokes the automatic stay against such action.

On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.