Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a November 2018 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that “… Ponzi scheme payments to satisfy legitimate antecedent debts to defendant banks could not be avoided” by a bankruptcy trustee “absent transaction-specific proof of actual intent to defraud or the statutory elements of constructive fraud — transfer by an insolvent debtor who did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange.” Stoebner v. Opportunity Finance, LLC, 2018 WL 6055636 4 (8th Cir. Nov. 20, 2018), citing Finn v. Alliance Bank, 860 N.W. 2d 638, 653-56 (Minn. 2015).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of a bankruptcy trustee's $250 million fraudulent transfer suit against two banks (the Banks), rejecting the so called “Ponzi scheme presumption” that “allows a creditor to by-pass the proof requirements of a fraudulent-transfer claim by showing that the debtor operated a Ponzi scheme and transferred assets 'in furtherance of the scheme.'” Id., at 3, quoting Finn, 860 N.W. 2d, at 646 (Minn. 2015) (construing Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA) and declining to apply Ponzi scheme presumption).
The judge-made Ponzi scheme presumption has generated litigation in the past few years. The Eighth Circuit in Stoebner enthusiastically followed the Minnesota Supreme Court's 2015 Finn decision to reach the right result (i.e., rejecting the presumption). In contrast, two years ago, the Fifth Circuit begrudgingly accepted the Texas Supreme Court's similar reading of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in Janvey v. Golf Channel Inc., 834 F.3d 570, 572-73 (5th Cir. 2016) (because “the Supreme Court of Texas is the authoritative interpreter of [the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act] and [because] we are bound by its answer to our certified question when applying that statute,” the defendant's “media-advertising services had objective value and utility from a reasonable creditor's perspective at the time of the transaction, regardless of [the debtor's] financial solvency at the time.”), quotingJanvey v. Golf Channel, Inc., 487 S.W. 3d 560, 581-82 Tex. 2016). The Fifth Circuit in Janvey also ignored the Minnesota Supreme Court's 2015 Finn decision.
An entity known as PCI “purported to run a 'diverting' business that purchased electronics in bulk and resold them at high profits to major retailers.” 2018 WL 6055636 at 1, quoting Richie Capital Management, LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857, 859 (8th Cir. 2015). PCI deceived investors into providing it with financing to acquire merchandise for resale, but never purchased merchandise or sold it to retailers. Like other classic Ponzi schemes, PCI's purported income came from investor loans that PCI used to repay earlier investors. Id., n.1, In re Armstrong, 291 F.3d 517, 520 n.3 (8th Cir. 2002) (a Ponzi scheme is a “fraudulent business venture … in which investors' 'returns' are generated by capital from new investors rather than the success of underlying business venture.”).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.