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
The latest turn in the ongoing Petters bankruptcy saga came on June 11, when U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregory Kishel issued a 46-page order examining 2012 amendments to the Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA).
A creditor’s guaranty claim “arising from equity investments in a debtor’s affiliate should be treated the same as equity investments in the debtor itself — i.e., … subordinated to the claims of general creditors,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2015. In re American Housing Foundation, 2015 WL 1918854, at *8 (5th Cir. April 28, 2015).
In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.
For some participants in the debt and credit markets, insider trading risks seem like a problem for someone else. There is some statistical basis for that assumption; the law of insider trading has been developed largely through cases involving the equity markets. There is no basis, however, for a sense of immunity. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent settlement involving Barclays Bank PLC and Steven J. Landzberg, a former proprietary trader for Barclays’ U.S.
Assignee creditors are protected by the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that prevents debtors from obtaining a discharge for debts obtained through fraud, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held.