Welch v. Synovus Bank

5 Citing cases

  1. Welch v. Highlands Union Bank

    526 B.R. 152 (W.D. Va. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    ” Kapila v. WLN Family Ltd. P'ship (In re LeNeve), 341 B.R. 53, 56–57 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2006) (addressing this term within the context of 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B) and Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(b)). As noted by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in a proceeding associated with the present bankruptcy case, Welch v. Synovus Bank, 517 B.R. 269 (M.D.Fla.2014), “the question of whether [the bank] failed to exchange reasonably equivalent value for the relevant transfers in this case constitutes an issue to be resolved after the close of discovery.” Id. at 283.

  2. Phx. Corp. Recovery Servs. v. Astrachan (In re Beaulieu Grp.)

    No. 17-41677-BEM (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sep. 29, 2021)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that "[m]anagers of a limited liability company are analogous to directors of a corporation, especially when the operating agreement vests management of the company in a board of managers"

    Plaintiff argues that because reasonably equivalent value is a fact-specific question, it should not be a basis to dismiss a complaint. See Kipperman v. Onex Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1242-JOF, 2006 WL 8421931, at *10 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 15, 2006), on reconsideration, No. CIV.A. 1:05-CV-1242, 2007 WL 2872463 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 26, 2007) (stating that "[w]hether or not Plaintiff received reasonably equivalent value is a fact-specific issue" but also noting on reconsideration that the complaint alleged the debtor received no consideration for the transfers at issue); Welch v. Synovus Bank, 517 B.R. 269, 283 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (finding that an allegation of less than reasonably equivalent value was sufficient to survive dismissal "[i]n the context of the Trustee's comprehensive Amended Complaint[.]").

  3. Reagor Auto Mall, Ltd. v. Firstcapital Bank of Tex. (In re Reagor-Dykes Motors, LP)

    Case No.: 18-50214-RLJ-11 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Even in light of this "lesser" pleading standard for trustees, trustees often times include more information for fraudulent transfers than the Debtors have here. For example, in Welch v. Synovus Bank, 517 B.R. 269, 277 (M.D. Fla. 2014), the trustee had sufficiently pleaded a check kiting scheme and included many paragraphs detailing the factual circumstances of the debtor's use of the defendant's bank accounts and "attached to the [complaint] a number of illustrations analyzing the alleged check kiting activity as well as several documents detailing [debtor's] deposits and overdraft activity." In another case, the trustee met the relaxed 9(b) pleading standard where the trustee attached an exhibit to the complaint that listed the date and amount of each transfer, as well as the type of transfer made (i.e., wire transfers) in a Ponzi scheme alleging over $10 million in avoidable transactions.

  4. Herendeen v. Regions Bank (In re Able Body Temp. Servs., Inc.)

    Case Nos. 8:13-bk-06864-CED, et al (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018)

    Likewise, in Highlands Union, the district court denied the defendant bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings (applying the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6)), finding that the plaintiff trustee had alleged that the transfers at issue were made for "less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfers." 517 B.R. 269 (M.D. Fla. 2014). 526 B.R. 152 (W.D. Va. 2015).

  5. Stillwater Liquidating LLC v. Net Five at Palm Pointe, LLC (In re Stillwater Asset Backed Offshore Fund Ltd.)

    559 B.R. 563 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)   Cited 14 times
    Denying liquidating trust's effort to apply alter ego theories to disregard corporate form to expand litigation claims it sought to assert, noting that there was "no support for the idea that alter ego theories can be used in this selective and self-serving way"

    Three of the decisions cited by Stillwater Liquidating involved cases in which courts held that that “de facto” control of property was sufficient, under Texas and Florida law, to support a claim that property belonged to a debtor, even though legal title resided elsewhere. SeeDe La Pena Stettner v. Smith (In re IFS Fin. Corp.). , 669 F.3d 255 (5th Cir.2012) (affirming a bankruptcy court holding that a debtor was the “de facto” owner, under Texas law, of a bank account that the debtor controlled); Templeton v. O'Cheskey (In re Am. Hous. Found.) , 785 F.3d 143, 159 (5th Cir.2015) (holding that under Texas law a bank account would be treated as property of a debtor where the debtor exercised such control over the account that it should be regarded as the de facto owner); Welch v. Synovus Bank , 517 B.R. 269 (M.D.Fla.2014) (Florida law). However, these three decisions are specific to Texas and Florida law and to the unique facts of those cases.