The Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act: A solution for creditors concerned about the expected flood of commercial foreclosure filings and the resulting delays in the resolution of real property disputes.

By Kenneth Dante Murena and Zachary Hyman As more businesses struggle to continue operations and meet financial obligations, mortgage defaults are likely to surge resulting in a significant increase in lenders’ efforts to exercise their rights to recover amounts owed, including through foreclosure proceedings.  While Governor DeSantis has extended the moratorium on residential foreclosures, Executive …

Fifth Circuit Defends Prior Rulings that Ponzi Scheme Trade Creditors Do Not Provide Value Under Bankruptcy Code and Fraudulent Transfer Law Beyond Texas

Fifth Circuit Defends Prior Rulings that Ponzi Scheme Trade Creditors Do Not Provide Value Under Bankruptcy Code and Fraudulent Transfer Law Beyond Texas, After Texas Supreme Court Says They Do Under Texas UFTA if They Fully Perform in the Ordinary Course at Market Rates For nearly twenty years, R. Allen Stanford operated Stanford International Bank, …

Ponzi Scheme Trustee Has Standing to Pursue Recovery Claims, and Is Not Barred by in Pari Delicto Doctrine, in Sixth Circuit

Ponzi Scheme Trustee Has Standing to Pursue Recovery Claims, and Is Not Barred by in Pari Delicto Doctrine, in Sixth Circuit, Which Joins Third, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits in Declining to Follow Second Circuit’s Wagoner Rule In 1991, the Second Circuit, in Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114, 120 (2d Cir. 1991), held …

Tolling Statute of Limitations for Claims of Entities in Receivership or Bankruptcy Previously Controlled by Wrongdoer

Adverse Domination Doctrine Under the adverse domination doctrine, the statute of limitations for bringing an action against the corporate wrongdoers is tolled when those wrongdoers continue to control or dominate the corporation and prevent it from discovering the malfeasance and taking remedial action against the malefactors. See Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 188 Cal. …

Objective “Knew or Should Have Known” Standard Applies to Good Faith Defense to Actual Fraudulent Transfer Claim

While a defendant who received transfers from an insolvent or fraudulent enterprise in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value may ultimately defeat an actual fraudulent transfer claim, the plaintiff is not required to negate an anticipated good faith defense in the complaint to adequately state a claim. Such a defense is an affirmative defense …

A Receiver Has Standing to Pursue Fraudulent Transfer Claims on Behalf of Receivership Entity

As set forth in Scholes v. Lehmann and adopted by courts across the country, a Receiver has standing to pursue fraudulent transfer claims because the receivership entity in whose shoes the Receiver stands is deemed to be creditor of the Ponzi scheme or other fraudulent enterprise that was placed in receivership.  That seminal case and its ever-growing progeny …

Debtor/Transferor’s Actual Intent to Defraud May be Established Through Ponzi Scheme Presumption Based on Fraud Determination in Prior Action Against Debtor/Transferor

Application of the Ponzi Scheme Presumption To satisfy the intent element of a claim for actual fraudulent transfer for purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must either plead the facts establishing the debtor’s intent to hinder, delay or defraud its creditors with particularity (in Federal Court, pursuant to Rule 9 of the …

Receivership Estate, as Legal Identity Separate and Distinct From Receivership Entity, is Creditor of Receivership Entity for Purposes of Fraudulent Transfer Claims

Most court have adopted the traditional view that a receiver stands in the shoes of the entity that has been placed in receivership such that it can only assert those claims that the entity could have asserted.  See Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1995); Eberhard v. Marcu, 530 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. …

Stay Relief Is Seldom Granted in Receivership Cases

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in SEC v. Wencke, 742 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1984), set forth the three factors commonly applied by federal courts in determining whether to lift the stay in a receivership case: (1) whether refusing to lift the stay genuinely preserves the status quo or whether the moving party will …

A Receivership Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over the Receivership Property but Not Necessarily the Receivership Defendant

A court that appoints a receiver over property of a defendant typically has exclusive jurisdiction over such property and imposes a stay against commencing any litigation that would affect it.  A plaintiff that seeks to file suit to recover, impair, or affect property of a receivership estate or otherwise in the hand of the receiver …