13.07.2015 Views

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES Nassau Academy of Law CLE Live ...

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES Nassau Academy of Law CLE Live ...

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES Nassau Academy of Law CLE Live ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

302 B.R. 760 Page 4302 B.R. 760(Cite as: 302 B.R. 760)Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A.[24] Fraudulent Conveyances 14186k14 Most Cited CasesBadges <strong>of</strong> fraud, such as court may consider underNew York law in deciding whether transfer wasmade with actual intent to defraud creditors, include:(1) lack or inadequacy <strong>of</strong> consideration; (2) family,friendship or close associate relationship betweenparties; (3) retention <strong>of</strong> possession, benefit or use <strong>of</strong>property in question by debtor; (4) financial condition<strong>of</strong> the party sought to be charged both before andafter transfer; (5) existence or cumulative effect <strong>of</strong>pattern or series <strong>of</strong> transactions, or course <strong>of</strong> conduct,after debt was incurred, financial difficulties began,or creditor suits were initiated or threatened; and (6)general chronology <strong>of</strong> events and transactions underinquiry. N.Y.McKinney's Debtor and Creditor <strong>Law</strong> §276.[25] Fraudulent Conveyances 16186k16 Most Cited CasesUnder New York law, while presence <strong>of</strong> any particularbadge <strong>of</strong> fraud is by no means prerequisite to findingthat transfer was made with actual intent to defraudcreditors, badges <strong>of</strong> fraud appropriately focuscourt's inquiry on circumstances that suggest thatconveyance was made with fraudulent intent, i.e.,with purpose <strong>of</strong> placing debtor's assets out <strong>of</strong> reach <strong>of</strong>creditors.N.Y.McKinney's Debtor and Creditor <strong>Law</strong> § 276.*764 Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel LLP, New YorkCity, for Debtors.James C. McCarroll, Kramer, Levin, Naftalis &Frankel, LLP, New York City, for Trustee.Bingham McCutchen, New York City, Jonathan B.Alter, Bingham, McCutchen LLP, Hartford, CT, forCreditor Committee.Scott D. Corrigan, Peter Neil Wang, Freidman,Wang & Bleiberg, PC, New York City, for Plaintiff/Appellant.Michael R. Young, Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, LLP,New York City, for Defendant.Kelley Drye, Neil Matthew Merkl, Kelley, Drye &Warren, LLP, New York City, for Appellee.TRAGER, District Judge.Memorandum and OrderPlaintiff-Appellant Sharp International Corp.("Sharp") appeals an order <strong>of</strong> the Bankruptcy Courtfor the Eastern District <strong>of</strong> New York (Craig, J.), dismissingin its entirety an adversary complaint filed bySharp against its former secured lender, State StreetBank and Trust Company ("State Street"). The complaintasserts a claim against State Street under NewYork common law for aiding and abetting Sharp'sthree <strong>of</strong>ficers in breaching their fiduciary duties tothe company. Sharp further claims that a $12 millionpayment Sharp made to State Street in April 1999 insatisfaction <strong>of</strong> a valid antecedent debt is avoidable asa constructive and/or intentional fraudulent conveyancepursuant to New York Debtor & Creditor <strong>Law</strong>(the "D.C.L.") §§ 273-276. Lastly, Sharp asserts thatany claim State Street may subsequently raise byvirtue <strong>of</strong> its return <strong>of</strong> the $12 million payment--ifsuch relief were to be ordered-- should be equitablysubordinated to the claims <strong>of</strong> Sharp's other unsecuredcreditors.Background(1)Sharp is a closely-held New York corporation,which, at all times relevant to this case, was engagedprimarily in the business <strong>of</strong> importing, assemblingand distributing wrist watches, clocks, pens and mechanicalpencils. See Compl. 5, 9. This adversaryproceeding arises out <strong>of</strong> a massive fraud againstSharp and its creditors perpetuated by Sharp's former<strong>of</strong>ficers, Herbert, <strong>Law</strong>rence, and Bernard Spitz (the"Spitzes").In 1993, the Spitzes purchased 100 percent <strong>of</strong>Sharp's common stock. From then until October1999, the Spitzes served as Sharp's sole <strong>of</strong>ficers, withresponsibility *765 over Sharp's day-to-day affairs.[FN1] See id. 10. In January 1995, the Spitzes solda 13 percent ownership interest in Sharp to an outsideinvestor, Bohoradzaner, Inc. Pursuant to agreementsexecuted in connection with this sale, Bohoradzaner,Inc. had "the right to a seat on Sharp's Board <strong>of</strong> Directors,the right to inspect Sharp's books and records,the right to veto certain corporate transactions,and a variety <strong>of</strong> other corporate governance rights."Id. 11. Jaime Bohoradzaner, the principal <strong>of</strong> Bo-© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!