Page 2991 F.2d 31(Cite as: 991 F.2d 31)ute. N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 214, subd. 2.[3] Limitation <strong>of</strong> Actions 241 34(1)241 Limitation <strong>of</strong> Actions241I Statutes <strong>of</strong> Limitation241I(B) Limitations Applicable to ParticularActions241k34 Liabilities Created by Statute241k34(1) k. In General. Most CitedCasesUnder New York law, that a statute merely enlargescommon-law scheme <strong>of</strong> liability or grants additionalremedies is insufficient to bring it within statute <strong>of</strong>limitations for actions on liabilities created by statute.N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 214, subd. 2.[4] Fraudulent Conveyances 186 248186 Fraudulent Conveyances186III Remedies <strong>of</strong> Creditors and Purchasers186III(F) Time to Sue186k248 k. Time to Sue and Limitations.Most Cited CasesUnder New York law, actions by judgment creditoragainst debtor to set aside fraudulent conveyance aregoverned by six-year catch-all statute <strong>of</strong> limitations;action to set aside fraudulent conveyance is action forconstructive fraud, and actions for constructive fraudare subject to catch-all limitations period.N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 213, subd. 1;N.Y.McKinney's Debtor and Creditor <strong>Law</strong> § 273-a.[5] Fraudulent Conveyances 186 237(1)186 Fraudulent Conveyances186III Remedies <strong>of</strong> Creditors and Purchasers186III(C) Right <strong>of</strong> Action to Set Aside Transfer,and Defenses186k237 Nature and Form <strong>of</strong> Remedy186k237(1) k. In General. Most CitedCasesUnder New York law, action by judgment creditoragainst debtor to set aside fraudulent conveyance isaction for constructive fraud. N.Y.McKinney'sDebtor and Creditor <strong>Law</strong> § 273-a.[6] Fraud 184 38184 Fraud184II Actions184II(A) Rights <strong>of</strong> Action and Defenses184k38 k. Time to Sue and Limitations.Most Cited CasesUnder New York law, actions for constructive, ratherthan actual, fraud are subject to six-year catch-allstatute <strong>of</strong> limitations. N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 213,subd. 1.[7] Fraudulent Conveyances 186 1186 Fraudulent Conveyances186I Transfers and Transactions Invalid186I(A) Grounds <strong>of</strong> Invalidity in General186k1 k. Nature <strong>of</strong> Fraud in Transfers <strong>of</strong>Property. Most Cited CasesUnder New York law, allegedly fraudulent conveyancesmust be evaluated in context. N.Y.McKinney'sDebtor and Creditor <strong>Law</strong> § 273-a.[8] Corporations 101 542(1)101 Corporations101XII Insolvency and Receivers101k541 Conveyances When Insolvent or inContemplation <strong>of</strong> Insolvency101k542 In General101k542(1) k. In General. Most CitedCasesUnder New York law, corporation's conveyance <strong>of</strong>real property to subsidiary was not supported by fairconsideration, so that judgment creditor <strong>of</strong> corporationwas entitled to have it set aside as fraudulentconveyance, even though corporation subsequentlydistributed shares in subsidiary to corporation'sshareholders; transfer and distribution were elements<strong>of</strong> single corporate restructuring plan, subsidiary providedonly nominal consideration, apart from itsshares, for property, and net effect <strong>of</strong> restructuringwas transfer <strong>of</strong> property without any correspondingbenefit to corporation. N.Y.McKinney's Debtor andCreditor <strong>Law</strong> § 273-a.*32 Anthony J. Carpinello, Albany, NY (T. PaulKane, Theresa Atkins, Hiscock & Barclay, Albany,NY, <strong>of</strong> counsel), for defendant-appellant-crossappellee.Robert L. Weigel, New York City (Robin L. Baker,Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, <strong>of</strong> counsel), for plaintiffappellee-cross-appellant.© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3991 F.2d 31(Cite as: 991 F.2d 31)Before: NEWMAN, WINTER, and McLAUGHLIN,Circuit Judges.McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge:Plaintiff Ashley S. Orr, the receiver <strong>of</strong> AmericanPartners, Inc., is a judgment creditor <strong>of</strong> defendantKinderhill Corporation. While Orr's damage actionagainst Kinderhill was pending, Kinderhill deededcertain real property to its wholly-owned subsidiary,defendant Kinderhill Investment Company (“KIC”),for nominal consideration. After the transfer, but beforethe deeds were recorded, Kinderhill distributedthe stock in KIC to Kinderhill stockholders. KeyBank <strong>of</strong> Eastern New York, with knowledge <strong>of</strong> thesetransactions, later lent money to KIC and took backmortgages on the real property as security.After he obtained a judgment against Kinderhill, Orrsued in the District Court for the Northern District <strong>of</strong>New York (Con. G. Cholakis, Judge ) to set aside asa fraudulent conveyance Kinderhill's transfer <strong>of</strong> theproperty to KIC and KIC's subsequent transfer to KeyBank <strong>of</strong> a security interest in the real property. Thedistrict court granted partial summary judgment toOrr and set aside the transfer <strong>of</strong> real property, holding:(1) that a six-year limitations period applies toactions under New York Debtor & Creditor <strong>Law</strong> §273-a; and (2) that the transfer was not supported byfair consideration and was therefore fraudulent. Thedistrict court also granted partial summary judgmentto Key Bank on Orr's claim under Debtor & Creditor<strong>Law</strong> § 273, holding that it was time-barred. Becausethe transfer <strong>of</strong> real property and the distribution <strong>of</strong>stock were an integrated transaction not supported byfair consideration, we now affirm.BACKGROUNDTwenty years ago when limited partnerships werepopular as tax shelters, Thomas A. Martin foundedKinderhill. It was to serve as managing general partnerin various limited partnerships engaged in thoroughbredbreeding and racing. Martin has been thecompany's president and principal shareholder. Since1979, Key Bank has been Kinderhill's primary lender.American Partners, a California corporation, hadbeen a co-general partner with Kinderhill in severallimited partnerships. In August 1984, American Partnerswent into receivership and Orr, as its receiver,sued Kinderhill and Martin in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District <strong>of</strong> California (the“California Action”) for over one million dollars inmanagement fees that American Partners claimed itwas owed.In December 1985, while the California Action waspending against it, Kinderhill decided to restructure,apparently for tax reasons. Its Board <strong>of</strong> Directorsapproved a plan to create a wholly-owned subsidiary(KIC) to which Kinderhill would then transfer the tentracts <strong>of</strong> land (totalling 700 *33 acres) it owned inColumbia County, New York (the “New York Property”).To complete the deal, Kinderhill would distributeall its shares in KIC to its own shareholders.On New Years Eve, 1985, Kinderhill deeded nine <strong>of</strong>the ten New York tracts to KIC for nominal consideration(one to ten dollars). Nine months later, Kinderhillconveyed the tenth tract to KIC, also fornominal consideration. KIC assumed several outstandingmortgages on the New York Property totalling$780,000, although the land was worth between$3.45 and $4.4 million. KIC did not record the deedsuntil November 6, 1986 (seven tracts), November 11,1986 (two tracts), and January 20, 1987 (one tract).In September 1986, after Kinderhill had deeded theNew York Property to KIC, but before the deedswere recorded, Kinderhill approved a plan, effectiveOctober 1, 1986, for the distribution <strong>of</strong> all KIC sharesto Kinderhill shareholders. Upon the distribution,KIC and Kinderhill no longer had a formal corporaterelationship, although Martin continued to controland operate both companies.By 1986, Kinderhill had begun to experience financialdifficulty as a result <strong>of</strong> a recession in the thoroughbredindustry that was exacerbated by adversechanges in the tax laws. Key Bank watched all thisfrom afar. It had identified the company's cash flowproblems as early as 1985, and, indeed, had placed itsKinderhill loans on watch status in March 1986. Forthe fiscal year ended September 30, 1986, Kinderhilllost $612,825, and had a negative cash flow overtwice that amount.In early 1987, Martin came back to Key Bank forfinancing, requesting that it provide a $2.5 million© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
- Page 1 and 2:
Nassau Academy of LawCLE Live Class
- Page 3 and 4:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 5 and 6:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 7 and 8:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 9 and 10:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 11 and 12:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 13 and 14:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 15 and 16:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 17 and 18:
McKinney's Debtor and Creditor Law
- Page 19 and 20:
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP45 Rockefeller
- Page 21 and 22:
usiness of defendant Bernard L. Mad
- Page 23 and 24:
BACKGROUND, THE TRUSTEE, AND STANDI
- Page 25 and 26:
Madoff who received fraudulent tran
- Page 27 and 28:
ased on fictitious profits and for
- Page 29 and 30:
28. BLMIS funds were also used to p
- Page 31 and 32:
Madoff, and her niece, Shana Madoff
- Page 33 and 34:
42. Ruth Madoff was never an employ
- Page 35 and 36:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONTURNOVER AND A
- Page 37 and 38:
66. At the time of each of the Two-
- Page 39 and 40:
Transfers; (b) directing that the S
- Page 41 and 42:
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTIONUNDISCOVERED
- Page 43 and 44:
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONDISALLOWANCE O
- Page 45 and 46:
111. Mrs. Madoff benefited from the
- Page 47 and 48:
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully
- Page 49 and 50:
2(c)(3): (a) preserving the Subsequ
- Page 51 and 52:
302 B.R. 760 Page 1302 B.R. 760(Cit
- Page 53 and 54:
302 B.R. 760 Page 3302 B.R. 760(Cit
- Page 55 and 56:
302 B.R. 760 Page 5302 B.R. 760(Cit
- Page 57 and 58:
302 B.R. 760 Page 7302 B.R. 760(Cit
- Page 59 and 60:
302 B.R. 760 Page 9302 B.R. 760(Cit
- Page 61 and 62:
302 B.R. 760 Page 11302 B.R. 760(Ci
- Page 63 and 64:
302 B.R. 760 Page 13302 B.R. 760(Ci
- Page 65 and 66:
302 B.R. 760 Page 15302 B.R. 760(Ci
- Page 67 and 68:
302 B.R. 760 Page 17302 B.R. 760(Ci
- Page 69 and 70:
302 B.R. 760 Page 19302 B.R. 760(Ci
- Page 71 and 72:
394 B.R. 721 Page 1394 B.R. 721, 50
- Page 73 and 74:
394 B.R. 721 Page 3394 B.R. 721, 50
- Page 75 and 76:
394 B.R. 721 Page 5394 B.R. 721, 50
- Page 77 and 78:
394 B.R. 721 Page 7394 B.R. 721, 50
- Page 79 and 80:
394 B.R. 721 Page 9394 B.R. 721, 50
- Page 81 and 82:
394 B.R. 721 Page 11394 B.R. 721, 5
- Page 83 and 84:
394 B.R. 721 Page 13394 B.R. 721, 5
- Page 85 and 86:
394 B.R. 721 Page 15394 B.R. 721, 5
- Page 87 and 88: 394 B.R. 721 Page 17394 B.R. 721, 5
- Page 89 and 90: 394 B.R. 721 Page 19394 B.R. 721, 5
- Page 91 and 92: 394 B.R. 721 Page 21394 B.R. 721, 5
- Page 93 and 94: 397 B.R. 642 Page 2397 B.R. 642(Cit
- Page 95 and 96: 397 B.R. 642 Page 4397 B.R. 642(Cit
- Page 97 and 98: 397 B.R. 642 Page 6397 B.R. 642(Cit
- Page 99 and 100: 397 B.R. 642 Page 8397 B.R. 642(Cit
- Page 101 and 102: 397 B.R. 642 Page 10397 B.R. 642(Ci
- Page 103 and 104: 397 B.R. 642 Page 12397 B.R. 642(Ci
- Page 105 and 106: 397 B.R. 642 Page 14397 B.R. 642(Ci
- Page 107 and 108: 443 F.3d 180 Page 2443 F.3d 180(Cit
- Page 109 and 110: 443 F.3d 180 Page 4443 F.3d 180(Cit
- Page 111 and 112: 443 F.3d 180 Page 6443 F.3d 180(Cit
- Page 113 and 114: 443 F.3d 180 Page 8443 F.3d 180(Cit
- Page 115 and 116: 443 F.3d 180 Page 10443 F.3d 180(Ci
- Page 117 and 118: 443 F.3d 180 Page 12443 F.3d 180(Ci
- Page 119 and 120: Page 2257 A.D.2d 526, 684 N.Y.S.2d
- Page 121 and 122: Page 4257 A.D.2d 526, 684 N.Y.S.2d
- Page 123 and 124: Page 6257 A.D.2d 526, 684 N.Y.S.2d
- Page 125 and 126: 770 N.Y.S.2d 421 Page 22 A.D.3d 780
- Page 127 and 128: Page 14 A.D.3d 495, 773 N.Y.S.2d 71
- Page 129: Page 34 A.D.3d 495, 773 N.Y.S.2d 71
- Page 132 and 133: 780 N.Y.S.2d 409 Page 29 A.D.3d 553
- Page 134 and 135: Page 134 A.D.3d 231, 824 N.Y.S.2d 3
- Page 136 and 137: Page 334 A.D.3d 231, 824 N.Y.S.2d 3
- Page 140 and 141: Page 4991 F.2d 31(Cite as: 991 F.2d
- Page 142 and 143: Page 6991 F.2d 31(Cite as: 991 F.2d
- Page 144 and 145: FRAUDULENT TRANFERENCESRonald M. Te
- Page 146 and 147: Nursing home case_ Transfer of pers
- Page 148 and 149: Sections 548 and 544 work in concer
- Page 150 and 151: U.S. Supreme CourtBFP v. Resolution
- Page 152 and 153: example, from net 15 to COD; or cha
- Page 154 and 155: Bankruptcy Code Section§ 548. Frau
- Page 156: Ron Terenzi is a founding partner a