Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145
A terminated officer of a corporate debtor, who bargained for “18 months of severance ( … $375,000 … ) to ensure that his firing not disrupt [the debtor’s] negotiations for $80 million” of financing gave the debtor “reasonably equivalent value,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Oct. 15, 2015. In re Adam Aircraft Industries, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17930, at *27 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2015).
So-called “red flags” were not “sufficient to impose a duty on [a gambling casino (‘Casino’)] to investigate” a Chapter 11 debtor’s pre-bankruptcy fraudulent transfers to its insiders who gambled at the Casino, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Oct. 13, 2015. In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., 2015 WL 5936354, at *6 (7th Cir. Oct. 13, 2015).
An insolvent corporate subsidiary’s payment of its parent’s contractual obligations was not a fraudulent transfer when “the [subsidiary] Debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for [its cash] transfers,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Sept. 4, 2015. In re PSN USA, Inc., 2015 WL 5167803, at *7 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015) (per curiam).
In American Federated Title Corp. v. GFI Management Services, Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified the meaning of “reasonably equivalent value” in a complex fraudulent transfer case. Its decision in In re PSN USA, Inc., Case No. 14-15352 (11th Cir. Sept.
Courts almost always treat fraud claims as per se (automatic) violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Does that mean that fraudulent transfers of assets, likewise, automatically support recovery under section 75-1.1?
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
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that should make defendants in Ponzi cases shiver in their boots. The court said that the defendant, the Golf Channel, had to return nearly $6 million and that it could not take advantage of a commonly-invoked “reasonably equivalent value” defense. Even though the Golf Channel had aired advertisements promoting the business, which would normally have been “reasonably equivalent value,” the Fifth Circuit held that by airing advertisements promoting the Ponzi scheme, the Golf Channel did nothing to help the Ponzi scheme