Thus, Capital One alleged that over a two-year period, the value of Levine’s assets declined from $155 million to $29 million, with $45 million in assets being transferred to his wife for no consideration. To support its complaint, Capital One alleged numerous transfers by Levine and Corrigan during time periods when they should have known that they might have liability to Capital One under their guaranties. Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed and Capital One entered a $57 million judgment against Corrigan and Levine.Ĭapital One commenced the Action in 2016 alleging, constructive and actual fraudulent conveyances under sections 273, 274, 275, 276, 276-a and 278 of the DCL. ![]() In another related action, Capital One moved for summary judgment in lieu of complaint against Corrigan and Levine on their respective guaranties. Thereafter, in a related action, TFA sued Capital One for, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud related to the decision to stop lending. TFA’s business “was destroyed” and, when its loan obligations to Capital One matured in late 2014, it defaulted. As a result of Capital One’s decision, TFA was unable to extend new medallion loans or obtain replacement financing. In 2014, due to its decision to stop lending in the Chicago medallion market, Capital One began denying TFA’s requests for funding. The credit line, which was guarantied by Levine and Corrigan, was increased to $80 million in 2012. In 2009, Capital One provided TFA with a $35 million revolving credit line to finance its business. Levine and Corrigan were principals of TFA. Transit Funding Associates, LLC (“TFA”) was in the business of lending money to Chicago taxi owners and drivers to purchase taxi medallions. The facts in Capital One are interesting. December 14, 2017) (the “Action”), recently decided two motions to dismiss plaintiff’s fraudulent conveyance complaint. The Court, in Capital One Equipment Finance Corp. For example, section 273 (Conveyances by insolvent) provides that conveyances that render a debtor insolvent that are made without fair consideration, are fraudulent as to creditors regardless of intent section 273-a (Conveyances by defendants) provides that a conveyance made without fair consideration by a defendant in an action for money damages is fraudulent as to the plaintiff in that action, regardless of intent, if the defendant fails to satisfy a resulting judgment in the action and, section 276 (Conveyance made with intent to defraud) provides that conveyances made with actual intent (as opposed to presumed intent) to “hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and future creditors.” Presently, Article 10 of New York’s Debtor and Creditor Law (the “DCL”) governs fraudulent transfers. ![]() Other times, transfers may be deemed to be constructively fraudulent regardless of the actual intent of the debtor/transferor. Sometimes such transfers are made with actual intent to defraud. In very general terms, fraudulent conveyance statutes are designed to protect creditors from situations where a debtor transfers its assets to a creditor’s detriment. New York Supreme Court Addresses Pleading Requirements For Fraudulent Conveyance Actions Print Article Anti-Retaliation Under The SEC And CFTC Whistleblower Programs.The Confidentiality Protections Under The SEC/CFTC Whistleblower Program.The Whistleblower’s Information Must Lead To a Successful Enforcement Action.The Whistleblower Must Voluntarily Provide Original Information.The Process of Submitting A Whistleblower Claim.Eligibility Under The IRS Whistleblower Program.The Anti-Retaliation Provisions Of The False Claims Act.What to Expect When Blowing The Whistle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |