10th Circuit Narrows Scope of Subsequent Transferee Recovery
Under the Bankruptcy Code, not only can the initial recipient of a fraudulent conveyance be held liable, but so too can a subsequent transferee. However, there can be important nuances in the challenged transaction that may provide a subsequent transferee with a substantial defense. One of those nuances was recently identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
July 30, 2020 at 01:21 PM
7 minute read
Under the Bankruptcy Code, not only can the initial recipient of a fraudulent conveyance be held liable, but so too can a subsequent transferee. However, there can be important nuances in the challenged transaction that may provide a subsequent transferee with a substantial defense. One of those nuances was recently identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which highlighted the difference between the receipt of the asset which was fraudulently conveyed and the proceeds of such asset. See Rajala v. Spencer Fane (In re Generation Resources Holding), 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21454 (10th Cir. July 10, 2020).
Pre-petition, debtor Generation Resources Holding Co., LLC entered into development agreements for three wind power projects with Edison Capital, under which agreements Generation was the sole developer. Several months later, insiders of Generation created two new LLCs—LWHC and FWHC—and revised the development agreements so that the project developers were changed from Generation to LWHC and FWHC, respectively. The revised development agreements had the effect of transferring Generation's right to receive substantial payments under the agreements to LWHC and FWHC.
Years later, but after Generation filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, LWHC demanded payment from Edison. Although Edison paid, it unilaterally reduced the amount from $10.5 million to $5.5 million. In response, LWHC hired Husch Blackwell to bring suit against Edison for the remaining balance. Although LWHC prevailed in its action against Edison, the court ordered Edison to pay the $9 million judgment into the court pending judgment from the bankruptcy court as to whether the $9 million was property of LWHC or of the bankrupt Generation estate.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250