Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Insulates Innocent Friend from Corporate Debtor's Fraudulent Transfer Liability
The defendant "was a 'mere conduit' of [a] fraudulent transfer and cannot be liable to the bankruptcy estate for funds she never knew about," held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 5, 2022. In re BICOM N.Y., LLC, 2022 WL 1419997 (2d Cir. May 5, 2022). Affirming the lower courts' granting of summary judgement to the defendant transferee, the court refused to "equate … mere receipt [of corporate debtor funds] with liability," reasoning that "mere conduits" of fraudulent transfers are not "initial transferees" under Bankruptcy Code §550(a)(1) ("trustee may recover" fraudulently transferred property from "the initial transferee of such transfer").
Relevance
The Code does not define "initial transferee", leading to a raft of fact-intensive appellate decisions on the subject. Generally, a financial intermediary or conduit would not be a "transferee" of the debtor's property because it does not have control over that property. See, e.g., In re Pony Express Delivery Servs. Inc., 440 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (insurance broker received premium payments from debtor more than three weeks after paying insurance carriers on debtor's behalf; held, insurance broker was not initial transferee under §550); Christy v. Alexander & Alexander Inc., 130 F.3d 52, 59 (2d Cir. 1997) (insurance broker mere conduit), cert denied, 524 U.S. 912 (1998); In re Red Dot Scenic, Inc., 351 F.3d 57, 58 (2d Cir. 2003) (debtor's purchasing shareholder paid personal debt with checks drawn on debtor's corporate accounts; held, recipient of checks was initial transferee "and was therefore required to return the funds regardless of any potential good faith defense"; purchasing shareholder was not initial transferee because "he exercised no control over funds at issue once they were transferred from [debtor's] account"); Bonded Fin Servs., Inc. v. European AM Bank, 838 F.2d 890, 893 (7th Cir. 1988) ("minimum requirement of status as a 'transferee' is dominion over the money or other asset, the right to put the money to one's own purposes").
Facts
The defendant in BICOM was a friend of the corporate debtor's principal and "opened a joint bank account with [the principal] that was intended to hold only her money and to facilitate her permanent residency in the United States." Bicom, 2022 WL 1419997, at *1. According to the lower courts, the "defendant believed (rightly or not) that she could not open a U.S. bank account on her own because she lacked a U.S. Social Security number." In re BICOM NY, LLC, 619 B.R. 795, 796 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020). When the debtor's principal "ran into financial troubles and needed to move funds between his businesses while keeping his lending banks in the dark," he "routed $1 million from [the corporate debtor] through the joint account, where it stayed for two days before [the principal] transferred it to his other business via a forged check in [the defendant's] name to hide the source." BICOM, 2022 WL 1419997, at *1.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.