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):

In re Haler

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

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.

Return to Home

Insolvency news at your fingertips.

Kramer v. Mahia

Kramer v. Mahia (In re Khan)

Previous Article

Next Article

Kramer v. Mahia

Previous Article

Next Article

Other content in this Stream

Following a suggestion made by two Supreme Court justices, Tribune creditors ask the Second Circuit to recall the mandate and remand for reconsideration in district court.

Two justices recommend that the Second Circuit reconsider the ‘Tribune’ safe harbor decision in light of Merit Management.

Know a Young Leader? Applications Available.

In re DBSI Inc., offers new precedent that swings the balance back toward debtors and general unsecured creditors at the expense of the IRS.

ABI Deputy Executive Director Amy Quackenboss talks with David Cox of Cox Law Group and Elizabeth Gunn of the Office of the Virginia Attorney General about their new consumer book.

As wild fluctuations in cryptocurrency value invites a potential surge in bitcoin-related bankruptcies, we examines how to approach cryptocurrency in fraudulent-transfer fraudulent-transfer litigation

The debtor's debt for criminal restitution is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(7) where he had failed to preserve the argument that his former employers were not governmental units.

Doing a great forensic fraud analysis is meaningless unless the findings are reported effectively. Learn from the pros how to do it right the first time.

[...]Is a deposit or wire transfer into a debtor’s bank account a “transfer” within the meaning of § 101(54)? The legislative history behind § 101(54) suggests that the answer is “Yes.”

High court to decide whether a false oral statement about one asset results in nondischargeability.

Oral statement that company was in "very fine legally [sic] financial shape" & had "plenty of cash to operate" is within exception under 523(a)(2)(A) so the debt was dischargeable. Judgement reversed.

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

Creditors contemplating discharge proceeding pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A)’s fraud provision should be mindful of several potential pitfalls before assuming prior state judgment applies.

Justices search for a ruling that limits Section 546(e) but isn’t too broad.

Complimentary ~ April 26 @ 1 PM ET

Complimentary ~ May 3 @ 2 PM ET

One of the components of the definition of “fair market value” is having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.

Section 727(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides for the discharge of debts that arose prior to the petition date.

Ninth Circuit follows the Eleventh with a liberal recovery for an intentionally fraudulent transfer.

There are several accepted methodologies that trustees and receivers can use to demonstrate tracing of commingled funds to quantify the specific amounts associated with the fraud.