In re Crafts Plus+, Inc.

24 Citing cases

  1. Cage v. Davis (In re Giant Gray, Inc.)

    629 B.R. 814 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding section 550 does not require trustee to bring an action against the initial transferee to recover against defendants as mediate transferees

    As more fully explained in COLLIER :See generally 220 B.R. 331 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1998).Id. at 335.

  2. Woods & Erickson, LLP v. Leonard (In re AVI, Inc.)

    389 B.R. 721 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 165 times
    Holding that a trustee is not required to avoid the initial transfer from the initial transferee before seeking to avoid it and recover from subsequent transferees, and noting that this “conclusion is consistent with case law that has disallowed automatic recovery from a subsequent transferee following the avoidance of an initial transfer through a stipulated judgment or default when the transferee had not been a party to the underlying avoidance proceeding”

    The Eleventh Circuit in Int'l Admin. Servs. particularly relied on Judge Schwarzer's Richmond Produce decision resolving a Northern District of California bankruptcy appeal, which held that a trustee who demonstrates that a transfer is avoidable "may seek to recover against any transferee, initial or immediate, or an entity for whose benefit the transfer is made" and which explained that an interpretation of § 550 mandating actual avoidance of initial transfers "conflates [the Bankruptcy Code's] avoidance and recovery sections." Kendall v. Sorani (In re Richmond Produce), 195 B.R. 455, 463 (N.D.Cal. 1996) (Schwarzer, J.), quoted with approval, Int'l Admin. Servs., 408 F.3d at 706; accord, Durkin v. Shields (In re Imperial Corp. of Am.), 1997 WL 808628, at *4 (S.D.Cal. 1997); Crafts Plus +, Inc. v. Foothill Capital Corp. (In re Crafts Plus +, Inc.), 220 B.R. 331, 335-38 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1998). Judge Markell was persuaded by, and adopted, the Int'l Admin. Servs. and Richmond Produce analyses.

  3. In re Jones Storage Moving, Inc.

    Case No. 00-14862, Adv. No. 04-5106 (Bankr. D. Kan. Apr. 14, 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Setting forth elements of § 550 claim

    The court thoroughly examined many preference actions, including the 10th Circuit's opinion in Slack-Horner, cited to the Court by the Trustee in this case, and stated: 220 B.R. 331 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1998).Id., 220 B.R. at 334.

  4. In re Felt Mfg. Co., Inc.

    371 B.R. 589 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2007)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that, under New Hampshire law, once a corporation is insolvent, its directors owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation's creditors and creditors have standing to maintain derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duty

    Section 550(a) defines the partyfrom whom a trustee, or the Committee in this case, may seek to recover the property preferentially or fraudulently transferred or the value or proceeds of such property. Anton Noll, 277 B.R. at 878; Crafts Plus+,Inc. v. Foothill Cap. Corp. (In re Crafts Plus+, Inc.), 220 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1998). It "enunciates the separation between the concepts of avoiding a transfer and recovering from the transferee."

  5. Dahar v. Foistner (In re Foistner)

    Bk 17-10796-BAH (Bankr. D.N.H. Sep. 15, 2023)

    Notinger v. Brown, 2008 WL 2115200, at *10 (citing In re Felt Mfg. Co., Inc., 371 B.R. at 625 (citing Richardson v.United States (In re Anton Noll, Inc.), 277 B.R. 875, 878 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2002); Crafts Plus+, Inc. v. Foothill Cap. Corp. (In re Crafts Plus+, Inc.), 220 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1998))). "It 'enunciates the separation between the concepts of avoiding a transfer and recovering from the transferee.'"

  6. In re Brown

    Bk. No. 06-11306-JMD, Adv. No. 06-1450-JMD (Bankr. D.N.H. May. 19, 2008)

    Section 550(a) defines the party from whom a trustee may seek to recover the property fraudulently transferred or the value or proceeds of such property. Felt, 371 B.R. at 625 (citing Richardson v. United States (In re Anton Noll, Inc.), 277 B.R. 875, 878 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2002); Crafts Plus+, Inc. v. Foothill Cap. Corp. (In re Crafts Plus+, Inc.), 220 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1998)). It "enunciates the separation between the concepts of avoiding a transfer and recovering from the transferee."

  7. In re Flashcom, Inc.

    361 B.R. 519 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007)

    Put simply, § 547(b) specifies a type of transfer that may be avoided by a bankruptcy trustee. SeeCrafts Plus+, Inc. v. Foothill Capital Corp. (In re Crafts Plus+), 220 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1998). Separately, § 550 identifies the parties against whom a trustee may recover the avoided transfer for the benefit of the estate.

  8. In re Flashcom, Inc.

    361 B.R. 519 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the Respondents have a constitutional right to defend the § 547(b) claim asserted against them before they can be deprived of the value of the property transferred under § 550

    Put simply, § 547(b) specifies a type of transfer that may be avoided by a bankruptcy trustee. See Crafts Plus+, Inc. v. Foothill Capital Corp. (In re Crafts Plus+), 220 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1998). Separately, § 550 identifies the parties against whom a trustee may recover the avoided transfer for the benefit of the estate.

  9. Milbank v. Philips Lighting Elecs. N. Am., of Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. (In re Elcoteq, Inc.)

    521 B.R. 189 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

    The Trustee's counterargument rests on cases that have allowed an avoidance and recovery action to be brought against a subsequent transferee without first avoiding the transfer to the initial transferee in the same chain of transactions. See Trustee's Supp. Br. Liens ¶ 12, at 6–7, ECF No. 61 (citing IBT Int'l, Inc. v. Northern ( In re Int'l Admin. Servs., Inc.), 408 F.3d 689, 705 (11th Cir.2005) (explaining the mere conduit rule); Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 480 B.R. 501, 520–23 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012) (allowing avoidance and recovery actions to proceed concurrently); MC Asset Recovery LLC v. Commerzbank AG ( In re Mirant Corp.), Case No. 03–046590, Adv. No. 05–04142, 2010 WL 8708772, at *35 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. Apr. 22, 2010) (applying the mere conduit rule); Crafts Plus+, Inc. v. Foothill Capital Corp. ( In re Crafts Plus+, Inc.), 220 B.R. 331, 335–38 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1998) (holding that not every beneficiary of a transfer must be joined in an avoidance and recovery action); Kendall v. Sorani ( In re Richmond Produce Co., Inc.), 195 B.R. 455, 463 (N.D.Cal.1996) (“[O]nce the trustee proves that a transfer is avoidable under section 548, he may seek to recover against any transferee, initial or immediate, or an entity for whose benefit the transfer is made.”)). However, none of the cases the Trustee has cited support the proposition that a trustee in bankruptcy may avoid a transfer in an entirely different chain of transactions without proceeding against any party in that chain.

  10. Dye v. Communications Ventures III, LP (In re Flashcom, Inc.)

    503 B.R. 99 (C.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that in a § 547 action, binding a subsequent transferee to a stipulated judgment between the trustee and the initial transferee violates the due process rights of the subsequent transferee and that the subsequent transferee may challenge the avoidability of the initial transfer at his trial

    In an effort to avoid the plainly obvious deficiencies with its res judicata argument, the Trustee asserts that who may be liable “is a completely separate concept” from whether the transfer is avoidable. ( See Dye Opening Brief at 17) (citing In re Crafts Plus+, Inc., 220 B.R. 331, 338 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1998) (“ § 547 focuses exclusively on the transfer, not the creditor or beneficiary.