FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES Nassau Academy of Law CLE Live ...

394 B.R. 721 Page 16394 B.R. 721, 50 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 192(Cite as: 394 B.R. 721)was not possible to maintain their reputation as leadinglenders to that industry unless they were lenders to MFS"and because "Charles and Matthew Fortgang would notallow MFS to do business with them if they attempted torestrict transfers to Fortgang Affiliates." Furthermore,they believed that they were protected from the adverseconsequences of the risky loans through "the personalguaranties of Matthew and Charles Fortgang and, subsequently,by obtaining liens on all of the assets of MFS andFLI." Five of the Pre-Petition Banks were also creditorsof the Fortgang Affiliates, and, benefited directly from theAffiliate Transfers.These allegations amount to no more than an effort tobolster an implausible theory with rank speculation. Nofacts are offered to support the inference that any particularPre-Petition Bank was so concerned about its lenderreputation in the jewelry business, or what the Fortgangsthought about it, that it would make the types of loansnecessary to fund the scheme alleged in the AmendedComplaint. Furthermore, the Amended Complaint doesnot plead any facts to support the contention that the Pre-Petition Banks were willing to make risky loans based onthe Fortgangs' guarantees or liens on unidentified assets.Indeed, if the Fortgang Affiliate receivables were trulyworthless, this would imply that the Fortgang Affiliateswere insolvent, and could not pay their debts. In thatevent, the Fortgangs' equity in the insolvent Fortgang Affiliateswould be worthless, and their ability to honor theirguarantees would be more doubtful. Finally, the fact thatfive unidentified Pre-Petition Banks were also creditors ofthe Fortgang Affiliates and benefited from the AffiliateTransfers implies that these banks made new loans simplyto repay the old loans.In conclusion, the Amended Complaint does not set fortha plausible claim that the Pre-Petition Banks or SPMknew or should have known that the debtors were engagedin a multi-year scheme to make constructivefraudulent transfers of the Pre-Petition Bank loans and theSPM gold to the Fortgang Affiliates. Accordingly, thecorresponding obligations to the Pre-Petition Banks arenot avoidable, FLI's guarantee of those obligations is notvoidable, and Counts I through III must be dismissed.[FN19] In addition, since the obligations are not avoidable,the liens given to secure the obligations are sup-by antecedent debts, and cannot be avoided. Con-portedsequently, Count IV must also be dismissed.FN19. The Amended Complaint does not supplyany information about the FLI obligations thatMFS guaranteed. Hence, it does not state a claimthat the FLI independent obligations werefraudulent, or that MFS' guarantee of those obli-gations was fraudulent.B. Counts V through VII1. The Sufficiency of the AllegationsThe last three Counts do not depend on the collapsingdoctrine, or, at least in the first instance, the defendantbanks' knowledge. Counts V and VI allege that betweenJanuary 2006 and the Petition Date, the debtors transferredthe aggregate amount of $38,890,000 to four specificFortgang Affiliates: Alpha Diamond, Diamfab,Fabrikant Trading India and Fabrikant HK. During thesame period, the four Fortgang Affiliates transferred$14,025,784 to HSBC, $8,364,295 to ABN and$5,946,592 to IDB. In addition, between January 2005and the Petition Date, the debtors transferred $10,535,000to VSI, another Fortgang Affiliate, and during the sametime span, VSI transferred $9,882,351 to Sovereign Bankin satisfaction *740 of its own debt. The Fortgang Affiliatesmade the second set of transfers to pay down theirown obligations to the transferee defendant banks. Theplaintiff contends that the first set of transfers, from thedebtors to the Fortgang Affiliates, were actually or constructivelyfraudulent. It seeks to avoid these first transfers,and in Count VII, recover the value of the transfersfrom the subsequent transferees, HSBC, ABN, IDB andSovereign Bank (collectively, the "Defendant Banks").[FN 20]FN20. Under 11 U.S.C. § 550(b)(1), the trusteecannot recover from a subsequent transferee whotook the transfer for value, in good faith andwithout knowledge of the avoidability of the initialtransfer. These are affirmative defenses thatthe transferee defendant must plead and prove.Cassirer v. Sterling Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. ofN.Y. (In re Schick), 223 B.R. 661, 664-65(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1998).The initial transfers appear to be a subset of the transfersthat were indirectly challenged in Counts I through III. Inany case, the allegations relating to the intentional fraudulenttransfer claims are insufficient for the reasons stated,plus a few more. The Amended Complaint fails to identifythe date or amount of each transfer. Instead, it aggregatesan indefinite number of transfers made during a 2-3year period. Furthermore, except in the case of VSI, the© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.