394 B.R. 721 Page 4394 B.R. 721, 50 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 192(Cite as: 394 B.R. 721)material consideration in deciding whether this third partyis "necessary party" on theory that court cannot accordcomplete relief among existing parties in hisabsence. Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7019, 11 U.S.C.A.;Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a)(1)(A), 28 U.S.C.A.[24] Bankruptcy 2159.151k2159.1 Most Cited CasesFor joinder <strong>of</strong> absent third party to be required on theorythat adjudication in his absence may, as practical matter,impair or impede his ability to protect some interest thathe has in subject <strong>of</strong> litigation, the impact <strong>of</strong> any adjudicationon his interest must be direct and immediate; merepossibility <strong>of</strong> collateral estoppel is not enough, if it cannotbe shown that some outcome <strong>of</strong> federal litigation which isreasonably likely can preclude absent party with respectto some issue material to absent party's rights or dutiesunder standard principles governing effect <strong>of</strong> prior judgments.Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7019, 11 U.S.C.A.;Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i), 28 U.S.C.A.[25] Bankruptcy 272351k2723 Most Cited CasesTransferee that retains title to or an interest in the propertyconveyed is "necessary party" to fraudulent transfer actionagainst subsequent transferee. 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 548, 550;Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7019, 11 U.S.C.A.; Fed.RulesCiv.Proc.Rule 19, 28 U.S.C.A.[26] Bankruptcy 272351k2723 Most Cited CasesEarlier transferee who has parted with all interest in thetransferred property is not "necessary party" in suitagainst subsequent transferee. 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 548, 550;Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7019, 11 U.S.C.A.; Fed.RulesCiv.Proc.Rule 19, 28 U.S.C.A.[27] Bankruptcy 2159.151k2159.1 Most Cited Cases"Multiple liability" clause <strong>of</strong> Federal Rule <strong>of</strong> Civil Proceduredescribing circumstances under which joinder <strong>of</strong>absent third party is required is intended to protect thedefendant against inconsistent obligations, not inconsistentadjudications. Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7019, 11U.S.C.A.; Fed.RulesCiv.Proc.Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii), 28 U.S.C.A.[28] Bankruptcy 216251k2162 Most Cited CasesGenerally, leave to amend should be freely granted whenjustice so requires, unless it would be futile. Fed.RulesBankr.Proc.Rule 7015, 11 U.S.C.A.; Fed.RulesCiv.Proc.Rule 15(a), 28 U.S.C.A.[29] Bankruptcy 216251k2162 Most Cited CasesDecision whether to grant leave to amend pleading iscommitted to trial court's discretion. Fed.RulesBankr.Proc.Rule 7015, 11 U.S.C.A.; Fed.RulesCiv.Proc.Rule 15(a), 28 U.S.C.A.[30] Bankruptcy 272451k2724 Most Cited CasesDeficiencies in fraudulent transfer avoidance complaintfiled by unsecured creditors' committee, consisting <strong>of</strong>committee's failure to particularize the transfers that itcontended were made with actual fraudulent intent and itsfailure to plead facts necessary to support inference thatinitial transferors had actual or constructive knowledge <strong>of</strong>scheme by debtors' principals to immediately transfermuch <strong>of</strong> what they received for less than reasonablyequivalent value to affiliates, as required to permit collapsing<strong>of</strong> transactions, were type <strong>of</strong> deficiencies thatcommittee might be able to cure, such that committeewould be granted leave to amend. Fed.RulesBankr.Proc.Rule 7015, 11 U.S.C.A.; Fed.RulesCiv.Proc.Rule 15(a), 28 U.S.C.A.*725 Susman Godfrey LLP, Stephen D. Susman, Esq.,Jacob W. Buchdahl, Esq., Jonathan J. Ross, Esq., <strong>of</strong>Counsel, New York, NY, Attorneys for the OfficialCommittee <strong>of</strong> Unsecured Creditors.Hahn & Hessen LLP, Steven J. Mandelsberg, Esq.,Joshua I. Divack, Esq., Charles Loesner, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel,New York, NY, Attorneys for JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A.Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Evan R. Fleck,Esq., Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., Ingrid Bagby, Esq., PeterM. Friedman, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel, New York, NY, Attorneysfor ABN Amro Bank N.V.Reimer & Braunstein LLP, Paul S. Samson, Esq.,Meegan B. Casey, Esq., Jeffrey D. Ganz, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel,Boston, MA, Attorneys for Bank <strong>of</strong> America, N.A.Phillips Lytle LLP, William J. Brown, Esq., Paul K.Stecker, Esq., Allan L. Hill, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel, New York,NY, Attorneys for HSBC Bank USA.© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
394 B.R. 721 Page 5394 B.R. 721, 50 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 192(Cite as: 394 B.R. 721)Herrick, Feinstein LLP, Andrew C. Gold, Esq., FrederickE. Schmidt, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel, New York, NY, Attorneysfor Bank Leumi USA.Heller Ehrman LLP, Timothy Mehok, Esq., ErinMcMurray-Killelea, Esq., Andrew Levine, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel,New York, NY, Attorneys for Israel Discount Bank <strong>of</strong>New York.Cullen And Dykman LLP, Matthew G. Roseman, Esq.,Matthew D. Brown, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel, Garden City, NY,Attorneys for Antwerpse Diamantbank, N.V.Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Douglaw W.Henkin, Esq., Wilbur F. Foster, Jr., Esq., Robert R. Miller,Esq., Alan J. Stone, Esq., <strong>of</strong> counsel, New York, NY,Attorneys for Sovereign Precious Metals, LLC and Sov-ereign Bank.MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERGRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTMOTIONS TODISMISS COMPLAINTS TUART M. BERNSTEIN, Chief Judge:This lawsuit arose out <strong>of</strong> the bankruptcy <strong>of</strong> M. Fabrikant& Sons, Inc. ("MFS") and Fabrikant-Leer International,Ltd. ("FLI," and collectively with MFS, the debtors or"Fabrikant"). In the main, the *726 Amended Complaint,dated March 27, 2008 (ECF Doc. # 54), seeks to avoid thepre-petition obligations owed by the debtors to the defendantbanks (other than Sovereign Bank), and to avoid andrecover the value <strong>of</strong> the liens granted to secure those obligations.The Official Committee <strong>of</strong> Unsecured Creditors<strong>of</strong> MFS and FLI (the plaintiff or the "Committee") alsoseeks to recover the value <strong>of</strong> gold that MFS purchasedfrom Sovereign Precious Metals, LLC ("SPM") and transferredto another company operated by its principals.Lastly, the Amended Complaint asserts claims againstfour <strong>of</strong> the defendant banks as subsequent transferees <strong>of</strong>fraudulent transfers.Each defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint. [FN1]For the reasons that follow, Counts I through IV are dismissed.In addition, those portions <strong>of</strong> Counts V throughVII that allege actual fraudulent transfers are dismissed.Finally, the plaintiff is granted leave to replead.FN1. The Committee filed its initial Complainton October 1, 2007. (ECF Doc. # 1.) After thedefendants moved to dismiss, the Committeefiled its Amended Complaint to add defendantSovereign Bank. The Amended Complaint otherwisemirrored the Complaint. The Court hastreated the motions as if they were directed at theAmended Complaint.BACKGROUNDThe background information is derived from the allegations<strong>of</strong> the Amended Complaint. MFS is a New Yorkcorporation, ( 5), [FN2] that had engaged in the diamondand jewelry business since 1895, and for many years, wasone <strong>of</strong> the largest and most prominent diamond and jewelrywholesalers in the world. ( 17.) In 2005, MFS establishedFLI, also a New York corporation, ( 6), to act as adistributor and wholesaler <strong>of</strong> "low end" finished jewelry.MFS owns 82% <strong>of</strong> the FLI stock. ( 18.)FN2. The parenthetical notation "( --)" refers tothe paragraphs in the Amended Complaint.Charles Fortgang and his son, Matthew Fortgang, ownapproximately 32% <strong>of</strong> the stock <strong>of</strong> MFS. ( 18.) The remainder<strong>of</strong> stock is owned, through a trust, by MarjorieFortgang and Susan Fortgang and by employees or formeremployees <strong>of</strong> MFS. ( 18.) At all relevant times, Charles,as chairman, and Matthew, as President, controlled MFSand FLI. ( 18.)In addition, Charles and Matthew Fortgang, and trusts <strong>of</strong>which Charles, Matthew, and Susan Fortgang were beneficiaries,owned a group <strong>of</strong> 47 companies (the "FortgangAffiliates") engaged in the diamond and jewelry business.( 20; see Amended Complaint at Ex. A.) With few exceptions,neither <strong>of</strong> the debtors had an ownership interest inany <strong>of</strong> the Fortgang Affiliates. ( 20.)MFS became insolvent no later than January 2003, (21), and FLI became insolvent no later than January 13,2006. ( 22.) They filed their voluntary chapter 11 petitionsin this Court on November 17, 2006 (the "PetitionDate").A. The "Scheme" Transactions (Counts I through IV)1. The Debtors and the Pre-Petition BanksThe thrust <strong>of</strong> Counts I through IV involves a scheme engineeredby Charles and Matthew Fortgang through© 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: 394 B.R. 721 Page 3394 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 138 and 139:
Page 2991 F.2d 31(Cite as: 991 F.2d
- 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