Kelley v. Opportunity Finance, LLC (In re Petters Co.)

7 Citing cases

  1. Kelley v. Opportunity Fin., LLC (In re Petters Co.)

    561 B.R. 738 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016)   Cited 7 times
    In Petters, Thomas J. Petters ("Petters") was the principal of Petters Company, Inc. ("PCI") and a number of related entities.

    See Adv. 10–4301, Dkt. Nos. 34; 44; 35.In re Petters Co., Inc. , 494 B.R. 413 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013) ("Common Issues I"); In re Petters Co., Inc. , 495 B.R. 887 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013), as amended (Aug. 30, 2013) ("Common Issues II"); In re Petters Co., Inc. , 499 B.R. 342 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2013) ("Common Issues III"); In re Petters Co., Inc. , 532 B.R. 100 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2015) ("Charitable Defendants"); In re Petters Co., Inc. , 550 B.R. 438 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016) ("SubCon Standing"); In re Petters Co., Inc. , 550 B.R. 457 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016) (The Effect of Finn Decision). Adv. No. 10–4301, Dkt. No. 61.

  2. Kelley v. Kanios

    383 F. Supp. 3d 852 (D. Minn. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    Indeed, following a thorough analysis of the Finn decision, Judge Kishel determined (in convincing manner) that a party in the Trustee's position could prove fraudulent intent by (a) "plac[ing] the transfer he would have avoided, into a chain of successive investment transactions that involved similar acts of fraudulent inducement by the Debtors, as to successive investors," and, (b), showing "the successive misdirection of investors' cash infusions toward the payment of earlier investments rather than the application to investment opportunities of the sort fraudulently represented." In re Petters Co. Inc. , 550 B.R. 457, 481-82 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016) ; see alsoid. at 467-69 (providing close analysis of Finn on this issue).

  3. Kelley v. Boosalis

    974 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2020)   Cited 15 times

    More broadly, I do not believe Finn forecloses the conclusion that the interest payments in these cases were not made in exchange for reasonably equivalent value. As the court's opinion acknowledges, Finn did not address whether interest payments made in the thick of a Ponzi churn are void under Minnesota law. Ante at 893–94; see In re Petters Co., Inc., 550 B.R. 457, 481 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016). Rather, because reasonably equivalent value must be assessed under the "facts and circumstances of each case," Finn, 860 N.W.2d at 650, Finn decided only that disbursements paid to investors who purchased loan-participation interests, some of which were made "in consequence of investment into legitimate, real business transactions," were in exchange for satisfaction of an antecedent debt.

  4. In re Petters Co.

    557 B.R. 711 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that "a period of time that is a substantive element of the cause of action may not" be equitably tolled

    The only presumption available under MUFTA, in accordance with the recently issued decision in Kelley v. Opportunity Finance, is that at some point, the corporate entity—while engaging in a Ponzi scheme—dipped into insolvency and never recovered. In re Petters Co., Inc ., 550 B.R. 457, 470 (Bankr.D.Minn.2016). No allegation to that effect has been included in the Complaint.

  5. Kelley v. Boosalis

    Case No. 0:18-cv-00868 (SRN/TNL) (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    This suit is one of several in which the Trustee, under the authority of state and federal fraudulent transfer statutes, seeks to recover certain funds that were paid to earlier, satisfied investors in the Ponzi scheme, and redistribute any of the recovered funds to later investors, who received little or no return on their investments. See In re Petters Co., Inc., 550 B.R. 457, 461-62 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016).

  6. Kelley v. Opportunity Fin., LLC (In re Petters Co.)

    562 B.R. 391 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The impact of that decision on this adversary proceeding and the claw back litigation as a whole has been addressed by this Court in In re Petters Co., Inc., 550 B.R. 457 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2016) ("Effect of Finn"). That decision also addressed the impact Finn had on the rulings in the Common Issues decisions from 2013.

  7. Greenpond S., LLC v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.

    886 N.W.2d 649 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 13 times
    Finding that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was not separate and distinct from injuries suffered by other PCI investors

    However, “a Ponzi scheme is a rolling fraud, involving a linear sequence of victims.” In re Petters Co., 550 B.R. 457, 476 (Bankr.D.Minn.2016). First, “a lender or investor is gulled into advancing money by a fraud in the inducement,” and then “a second lender or investor (or more than one such if the perpetrator's needs require) is gulled in a similar fashion[ ] into infusing on the pretense of an investment in a different transaction.