United States: Stanwich Clarifies Wagoner Rule In Fraudulent Transfer Cases

Last Updated: October 17 2013
Article by Daniel A. Lowenthal

In the Second U.S. Circuit, the so-called Wagoner rule deprives a trustee of standing to sue third parties, such as lawyers and investment bankers, if the bankrupt corporation participated with them in defrauding creditors. A recent decision from Connecticut clarifies the limitation of the Wagoner rule when a trustee asserts fraudulent transfer claims.

The case involved Settlement Services Treasury Assignments Inc. (SSTAI), which was sold in 1997 in a leveraged buyout (LBO). However, according to allegations in a lawsuit that followed, the deal rendered the company insolvent and unable to pay its debts, and the company's management had allegedly misappropriated corporate funds and improperly amended key corporate documents. SSTAI spiraled downward and, in 2001, filed for Chapter 11 in Connecticut. The debtor confirmed a plan in 2004, and a liquidating agent was appointed.

In 2002, the unsecured creditors' committee in the case had sued the company's principals and professionals to recover fraudulent transfers made in connection with the LBO. The liquidating agent later succeeded the committee as plaintiff in the action.

Early in the case, the Bankruptcy Court had ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert certain claims because management had participated in the fraud. But earlier this year—13 years after the case began—an appellate judge reversed that decision and held that the plaintiff does have standing to assert fraud-related claims that had been dismissed.

At the heart of the case have been basic concepts of standing that apply when management of a company in bankruptcy has engaged in fraudulent conduct. "Whether a claimant has standing is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit." Leasing by Paolo v. Sinatra (In re Cucci), 126 F.3d 380, 387- 88 (2d. Cir. 1997) (quoting Warth v, Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).

The doctrine of standing stems from the U.S. Constitution's requirement that federal courts only decide cases or controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, sec. 2., cl. 1. "A plaintiff must allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that "[a] plaintiff must always have suffered a 'distinct and palpable injury to himself' . . . ." Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 501). In addition, the injury cannot be "abstract," "conjectural," or "hypothetical." City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983). See Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 464, 472 (1982).

Significantly, the "'case or controversy' requirement coincides with the scope of the powers the U.S. Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee." Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 1991). A debtor or trustee must "allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1091 (2d Cir. 1995), aff'g Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 178 B.R. 40 (D.Conn 1994) (Hirsch- District). "Under the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee stands in the shoes of the bankruptcy corporation and has standing to bring any suit that the bankrupt corporation could have instituted had it not petitioned for bankruptcy." In re Hampton Hotels Investors, L.P., 289 B.R. 563, 573 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Moreover, "if a trustee has no power to assert a claim because it is not one belonging to the bankrupt estate, then he also fails to meet the prudential limitation that the legal rights asserted must be his own." Id. Whether a claim is property of a bankruptcy estate is determined by non-bankruptcy law, either state or federal. Id. And "[a] trustee has standing to sue third parties only if the debtor itself was damaged by the conduct of third parties." Hirsch-District, 178 B.R at 43. A trustee does not have standing to bring claims that belong to other parties, such as a debtor's creditors.

Wagoner

The adversary proceeding in SSTAI was brought in Connecticut, and thus precedent from the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied. The lead case in that jurisdiction regarding standing when a debtor has engaged in fraud is Wagoner, in which the 2nd Circuit stated that "when a bankrupt corporation has joined with a third party in defrauding its creditors, the trustee cannot recover against the third party for the damage to the creditors." Id. at 119.

In other words, a debtor does not have standing to assert claims if it was "complicit in the wrongdoing allegedly perpetrated by a third-party defendant." Giddens v. D.H. Blair & Co. (In re A.R. Baron & Co.), 280 B.R, 794, 800 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002). If a debtor has engaged in misconduct, then the claims belong to the estate's creditors, not to the bankruptcy estate. As the 2nd Circuit stated in another case, "[a] claim against a third party for defrauding a corporation with the cooperation of management accrues to creditors, not the guilty corporation." Wight v. BankAmerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2000).

In Wagoner, HMK Management Corporation had one stockholder and director. The company executed trades through a brokerage firm until the firm became concerned about HMK's trading activity and closed the accounts. HMK later filed for bankruptcy and a trustee sued the brokerage firm, alleging that it had engaged in wrongdoing. One claim asserted that the firm had churned HMK's accounts, and a second alleged that the brokerage had aided and abetted HMK in "making bad trades that dissipated corporate funds." Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 119.

The Second Circuit held that the bankruptcy trustee had standing to assert the first claim alleging churning, but not the second regarding the aiding and abetting allegation. HMK could have sued the brokerage firm for churning even if the company had not filed for bankruptcy. Therefore, the bankruptcy trustee had standing to assert that claim. But the Second Circuit ruled that the trustee could not assert the aiding and abetting claim because HMK had allegedly engaged in improper conduct. That claim belonged to the company's creditors, not to HMK and its bankruptcy

estate. Therefore, the doctrine of in pari delicto applied to deny the trustee standing because "the debtor's management had been a participant in wrongful activity." In re Hampton Hotels Investors, L.P., 289 B.R. at 576.

The Wagoner rule has an important exception known as the adverse interest exception, which provides that "management misconduct will not be imputed to the corporation if the [corporate] officer acted entirely in his own interests and adversely to the interests of the corporation." Id. In other words, the adverse interest exception would apply if the officer is said to be acting for his own benefit rather than that of the corporation. Accordingly, the corporation would have standing to sue a third party that damaged the corporation.

Key concepts of standing and the Wagoner rule have been front and center in the SSTAI litigation. SSTAI had served as a third-party administrator in situations resulting from lawsuits brought by seriously injured persons that were settled, resulting in the establishment of trusts to provide payments to those who were injured. SSTAI was the so-called assignment company that made the settlement payments to the beneficiaries. Under the structured settlements, tortfeasors or their insurers assigned the obligation to make the settlements to SSTAI with the payees' consent. Typically in such structured settlements, U.S. treasury bonds and/or annuities are bought to generate income over time to pay the obligations.

In 2002, the debtor and the unsecured creditors' committee stipulated that the committee could bring an adversary proceeding to recover transfers made as part of the LBO. Certain defendants challenged the committee's standing to bring the claims, but the Bankruptcy Court rejected their arguments, holding that, under Second Circuit precedent, the committee had "derivative standing" to bring estate claims when a debtor in possession was reluctant to do so. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Pardee (In re Stanwich Fin. Servs. Corp.), 2881 B.R. 24, 27 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002).

In 2003, the committee sought to amend the initial complaint to add new claims, but the Bankruptcy Court, citing the Wagoner rule, denied the request to assert certain claims on behalf of the estate because the debtor arguably had participated in the fraud. Stanwich, 317 B.R. 224 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2004). In 2005, the litigating agent moved to amend the complaint again, this time to add factual details about the fraud. An appeal in the case, however, delayed the Bankruptcy Court's consideration of that motion for five years.

Finally, in April 2011, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the liquidating agent did not have standing to assert fraudulent transfer claims against the debtor's former law firm and investment bank, again citing management's involvement in the fraud and the Wagoner rule. Judge Alan H.S. Shiff concluded that although the complaint deleted the words "aiding and abetting," the fraudulent transfer action was based on allegations that the law firm and investment bank had "assist[ed] or effectuate[d]" the LBO. Stanwich, Case No. 01-50831, Adv. Pro. No 02-5023, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1259, at *7 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 7, 2011).

The liquidating agent moved for reconsideration, but the Bankruptcy Court denied that motion in September 2011. Stanwich, Case No. 01-50831, Adv. Pro. No. 02-5023, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3785 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2011). The liquidating agent then appealed to the U.S. District Court, and that court reversed with respect to the fraudulent transfer claims asserted against the law firm and the investment bank. Stanwich, 488 B.R. 829 (D. Conn. 2013).

Standing in Another's Shoes

The Bankruptcy Code specifically affords a trustee standing to assert both state law and federal law fraudulent transfer claims under Sections 544 and 548, respectively. Section 544 permits a trustee to avoid a "transfer of property of the debtor" (Section 544(a)) or "of an interest of the debtor" (Section 544(b)), while Section 548 allows a trustee to avoid transfers of "an interest of the debtor."

As noted earlier, the Bankruptcy Court had dismissed these claims, ruling that the liquidating agent had essentially asserted aiding and abetting claims but without using those words. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill disagreed with that conclusion and analyzed the fraudulent transfer claims as they were pled and not as a pretext for other claims.

Underhill held that the liquidating agent had standing to pursue state law fraudulent transfer claims under Bankruptcy Code Section 544, even though management allegedly had engaged in the fraud at issue. He observed that "when acting under [S] ection 544(b), a trustee is vested with the rights of actual creditors to avoid certain transfers. So, even if the trustee itself is otherwise barred from asserting the claim because of Wagoner, the trustee, standing in the shoes of the creditors, is not barred from asserting the claim." Id. at 834. Underhill also noted that Wagoner cannot override Congress's express grant of standing to a trustee with respect to fraudulent transfer claims. In contrast, he concluded, the liquidating agent would not have standing to bring "fraud, malpractice, and other tort-based claims" against the law firm and the investment bank because of management's participation in the alleged wrongdoing. Id. Finally, the liquidating agent could not pursue the Bankruptcy Code Section 548 claim because the transfers at issue had occurred more than two years before the petition date. Therefore, that claim was barred by Section 548 itself rather than by the rules related to standing.

Clarifying Ruling

A debtor's wrongdoing prepetition limits what claims a debtor in possession or bankruptcy trustee can bring against third parties. Unless the adverse interest exception applies, a trustee will not have standing to sue third parties. But the recent decision in Stanwich makes clear that the Wagoner rule does not apply to fraudulent transfer claims. A trustee can bring those claims because they belong to the debtor's creditors and not to the debtor. J

Footnotes

1 SSTAI had been renamed Stanwich Financial Services Corp.

Previously published in the Journal of Corporate Renewal

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions