FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES Nassau Academy of Law CLE Live ...

394 B.R. 721 Page 18394 B.R. 721, 50 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 192(Cite as: 394 B.R. 721)(8th ed. 2004)("BLACK"), or "to annul, vacate, defeat,evade, invalidate." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTER-NATIONAL DICTIONARY (UNABRIDGED) 151(1981). It is not synonymous with "avoidable." Avoidable,or "voidable," is an adjective. It describes a transactionthat can be voided, id. at 2562, but that is "[v]aliduntil annulled." BLACK 1605. In other words, a transfermust be avoidable in order to be avoided, but until it isavoided, it is as valid as an unavoidable transfer.A significant number of cases have read § 550 to requirethat the plaintiff must first (or simultaneously) bring asuccessful suit against the initial transferee before he canrecover the transfer or its value from *742 the subsequenttransferee. [FN21] E.g., Weinman v. Simons (In re Slack-Horner Foundries Co.), 971 F.2d 577, 580 (10thCir.1992)("[I]n order to recover from a subsequent transfereethe trustee must first have the transfer of the debtor'sinterest to the initial transferee avoided under § 548");Allou Distribs., 379 B.R. at 19 ("Thus, before the Trusteemay obtain an actual recovery from the Movants under §550(a), he must first avoid the underlying initial transfers.");Geltzer v. Fur Warehouse, Ltd. (In re Furs by Albert& Marc Kaufman, Inc.), Adv. Proc. No. 05-1838,2006 WL 3735621, at * 8 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Dec.14,2006)(noting that an "essential element" of a trustee'srecovery under § 550(a) was his avoidance of the initialtransfer); Williams v. Mortillaro (In re Res., RecyclingRemediation, Inc.), 314 B.R. 62, 69(Bankr.W.D.Pa.2004)("Section 550(a) is a recovery provisionand gives rise to a secondary cause of action whichapplies after the trustee has prevailed under one (or more)of the avoidance provisions found in the BankruptcyCode."); Yoppolo v. Liberty Mortgage (In re Morgan),276 B.R. 785, 789 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2001)(the statutorylanguage of § 550 and its legislative history leads to theconclusion that a trustee must first avoid an underlyingtransfer before recovery); Greenwald v. Latham Watkins(In re Trans-End Tech., Inc.), 230 B.R. 101, 104-05(Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998)(under the plain and unambiguouslanguage of § 550(a), a prerequisite to recovery from anytransferee is that the initial transfer first be avoided ratherthan merely proven to be avoidable); Brandt v. Hicks,Muse Co., Inc. (In re Healthco Intl., Inc.), 195 B.R. 971,981-82 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996)("If the initial transfereemakes a second transfer, the property may be recoveredfrom the later transferee only if the transfer is avoidedwith respect to the initial transferee."); Santee v. Nw. NatlBank (In re Mako, Inc.), 127 B.R. 471, 473(Bankr.E.D.Okla.1991)(a cause of action under § 550(a)may be brought only after a trustee prevails pursuant tothe transfer avoidance sections of the Code).FN21. Enron Corp. v. Intl Fin. Corp. (In re EnronCorp.), 343 B.R. 75 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006),which is frequently cited in support of thisproposition, has been reversed. See Order Reversingand Remanding Judgment of the BankruptcyCourt, dated Apr. 16, 2008, Adv. Proc.No. 03-93370 (ECF Doc. # 167).An equally significant number of cases have reached theopposite result, concluding that the trustee can sue thesubsequent transferee in the first instance, and need proveonly that the initial transfer was avoidable. E.g., IBT Int'l,Inc. v. Northern (In re Int'l Admin. Servs., Inc.), 408 F.3d689, 706 (11th Cir.2005)("[O]nce the plaintiff proves thatan avoidable transfer exists he can then skip over the initialtransferee and recover from those next in line.");Kendall v. Sorani (In re Richmond Produce Co., Inc.),195 B.R. 455, 463 (N.D.Cal.1996)("[O]nce the trusteeproves that a transfer is avoidable under section 548, hemay seek to recover against any transferee, initial or immediate,or an entity for whose benefit the transfer ismade."); Brown v. Phillips (In re Phillips), 379 B.R. 765,780 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2007)("A court must first make a determinationwhether the transfer was fraudulent underapplicable state law and, therefore, avoidable under §544(b) before that transfer can be recovered pursuant to §550(a)."); Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Foss(In re Felt Mfg. Co., Inc.), 371 B.R. 589, 638(Bankr.D.N.H.2007)(In a recovery action under § 550, itis "sufficient if the complaint asserts that there are avoidabletransfers under state or federal law....");*743Leonard v. Optimal Payments Ltd. (In re Nat'l AuditDef. Network), 332 B.R. 896, 915(Bankr.D.Nev.2005)(adopting the holding ofInternational Administrative Services ); Crafts Plus+, Inc.v. Foothill Capital Corp. (In re Crafts Plus+, Inc.), 220B.R. 331, 338 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1998)("Once it has beenestablished that a qualified transfer has been made, § 550provides for recovery against either the initial transferee... or 'the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made.'"); see Woods & Erickson, LLP v. Leonard (In re AVI,Inc.), 389 B.R. 721, 735 (9th Cir. BAP 2008)("[W]e holdthat a trustee is not required to avoid the initial transferfrom the initial transferee before seeking recovery fromsubsequent transferees under § 550(a)(2)."). In RichmondProduce, District Judge Schwarzer explained that § 550does not contain language suggesting that recovery from asubsequent transferee is dependent on a prior action orrecovery against the initial transferee. The introductory"to the extent that" language in § 550(a) recognizes that© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.