Home » Fraud » Kramer v. Mahia

Kramer v. Mahia

January 4, 2018

Kramer v. Mahia (In re Khan)

  •  Summarized by NASCINE HOWELL , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey
  •  2 weeks 5 days ago
 
Case Type:
Consumer
Case Status:
Affirmed
Citation:
16-4181 (2nd Circuit, Dec 13,2017) Not Published
Ruling:
In a summary order, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s November 15, 2016 judgment, finding that five of the appellant’s arguments were meritless for the same reasons stated in the district court’s September 30, 2015 memorandum and order. The Second Circuit also denied the bankruptcy trustee-appellee’s motion to impose sanctions.
Procedural context:
The bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment to the trustee against the defendant for the defendant’s constructively fraudulent conveyances of the debtor’s property. The defendant appealed. The district court affirmed in a September 30, 2015 memorandum and order, and subsequently granted the trustee the value of defendant’s fraudulent transfers in the court’s November 15, 2016 judgment. The defendant appealed the district court’s judgment, and the bankruptcy trustee-appellee filed a motion to impose sanctions. The 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, and denied the trustee’s motion to impose sanctions.
Facts:
Defendant Mahia appealed the district court’s November 15, 2016 judgment, which granted partial summary judgment to the bankruptcy trustee-appellee, and granted the trustee a sum consistent with the district court’s prior September 30, 2015 decision. On appeal, the defendant argued that the district court’s judgment was erroneous on several grounds. Citing to the reasons stated in the district court’s September 30, 2015 memorandum and order, the Second Circuit concluded that five of the defendant’s arguments lacked merit: (i) that the bankruptcy court and district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; (ii) that the trustee-appellee lacked standing; (iii) that the bankruptcy judge(s) lacked authority to decide this case under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution; (iv) that the district court erroneously found that the trustee-appellee’s actions did not violate the defendant’s rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and (v) that the bankruptcy court erred when it found that the debtor did not receive fair consideration for the two subject property transfers. Ultimately, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, and denied the trustee’s motion for sanctions.
Judge(s):
The Honorable José A. Cabranes; The Honorable Debra A. Livingston; and The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
Tag(s):
Previous Article
In re Haler
In re Haler

Oral statement that company was in "very fine legally [sic] financial shape" & had "plenty of cash to opera...

Next Article
Millennium: At the Intersection of Stern v. Marshall and Third-Party Releases
Millennium: At the Intersection of Stern v. Marshall and Third-Party Releases

The issue of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans continues to generate litigation.

×

Get insolvency information from the source. Subscribe to the ABI InSider!

First Name
Last Name
!
Thank you!
Error - something went wrong!
Return to Home