United States: Tribune 2: No Actual Fraud Imputation In Avoidance Litigation Absent Control By Corporate Actors

With its landmark ruling in Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Large Private Beneficial Owners (In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.), 818 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Tribune 1"), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that claims asserted by creditors of the Tribune Co. ("Tribune") seeking to avoid payments to shareholders during a 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") as constructive fraudulent transfers were preempted by the "safe harbor" under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. According to the court, even though section 546(e) expressly provides that "the trustee" may not avoid certain payments under securities contracts unless such payments were made with the actual intent to defraud, section 546(e)'s language, its history, its purposes, and the policies embedded in the securities laws and elsewhere lead to the conclusion that the safe harbor was intended to preempt constructive fraud claims asserted by creditors. On September 9, 2016, the plaintiffs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is currently pending, as well as a petition filed in another case involving the same issue. See Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Robert R. McCormick Foundation, No. 16-317 (U.S. Sept. 9, 2016).

Tribune 1, however, is only half the story in the litigation to recover payments made to Tribune's shareholders in connection with the LBO. Tribune's official creditors' committee (succeeded by the litigation trustee (the "Trustee") appointed under Tribune's confirmed chapter 11 plan) separately sued to avoid the payments as actual, rather than constructive, fraudulent transfers.

In Kirschner v. FitzSimons (In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.), 2017 BL 5202 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017) ("Tribune 2"), the district court overseeing the consolidated avoidance litigation held that, in the context of an action to avoid an intentionally fraudulent transfer under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code: (i) when determining whether a debtor corporation had the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud its creditors, courts must examine the intent of the corporate actors who effectuated the transaction on behalf of the corporation; (ii) the intent of a debtor corporation's officers can be imputed to the debtor only if the officers were in a position to control the disposition of the debtor's property; and (iii) the Trustee failed to plead facts sufficient to allege that Tribune's corporate actors possessed the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Tribune's creditors through the LBO.

The Tribune LBO

In 2007, Tribune was the target of an LBO that paid its shareholders more than $8 billion in exchange for their shares in the company (the "Shareholder Transfers"). Prior to the LBO, Tribune's board of directors (the "Board") created a special committee (the "Special Committee") to consider the LBO. The Special Committee included seven independent directors (the "Independent Directors") that served on the Board. There were two separate parts to the contemplated LBO. First, Tribune would borrow approximately $7 billion and purchase approximately 50 percent of its outstanding shares for $34 per share in a tender offer. Second, the company would purchase its remaining shares and borrow an additional $3.7 billion in a go-private merger with a newly formed Tribune entity. The Board engaged Duff & Phelps to provide a solvency opinion for both steps. Duff & Phelps issued a "viability opinion" in which it concluded that, considering potential tax savings, Tribune would be able to pay its debts as they became due after the LBO.

After considering opinions on the fairness of the proposed transaction, a majority of the Board, including six of the Independent Directors, voted in favor of the LBO on April 1, 2007. Ten days afterward, the Board retained Valuation Research Company ("Valuation Research") to render solvency opinions concerning both parts of the transaction. Valuation Research rendered the solvency opinions shortly before the completion of each part of the LBO.

Shortly after the LBO was completed in December 2007, Tribune experienced financial difficulties due to declining advertising revenues and failed to meet projections. The company filed for chapter 11 protection in December 2008 in the District of Delaware.

The court confirmed Tribune's chapter 11 plan in July 2012. The plan assigned certain of the estate's avoidance claims to a litigation trust. Thus, the Trustee became the successor plaintiff in litigation that had been commenced in November 2010 by the unsecured creditors' committee (with leave of the court) seeking to avoid and recover the Shareholder Transfers as actual fraudulent transfers under sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The shareholder defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

The District Court's Ruling

The district court granted the motion to dismiss. At the outset, the court explained that, when considering whether a debtor had the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud its creditors within the meaning of section 548(a)(1)(A), "courts focus on the intent of the transferor, not the intent of the transferee." However, if the transferor is a corporation, courts assessing intent in this context look to the intent of the corporate agents who effectuated the transaction on behalf of the corporation. Under certain circumstances, the court noted, the intent of such corporate actors to defraud can be imputed to the corporation.

The district court then analyzed whether Tribune's officers (the "Officers") or the Independent Directors effectuated the LBO with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the company's creditors and, if so, whether that intent could be imputed to Tribune.

The Officers

The district court acknowledged that the Second Circuit has not yet articulated a test for determining when an officer's intent should be imputed to a corporation in actual fraudulent transfer litigation.

However, it agreed with decisions from other courts that the intent of a debtor's officers may be imputed to the debtor if the officers were in a position to control the disposition of the transferor's property and, exercising that control, effectuated the fraudulent transfer (citing In re Roco Corp., 701 F.2d 978 (1st Cir. 1983); In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 541 B.R. 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp., 263 B.R. 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 503 B.R. 348 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Lyondell 1"), abrogated in part on other grounds in Tribune 1, 818 F.3d at 118; In re Elrod Holdings Corp., 421 B.R. 700 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010); In re L & D Interests, Inc., 350 B.R. 391 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006)).

"In other words," the district court wrote, "an officer's wrongful intent may be imputed to the corporation 'by establishing that [the officer], by reason of the ability to control' members of the board, 'caused the critical mass' to form 'an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors' " (quoting Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), 541 B.R. 172, 177–78 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Lyondell 2"), rev'd and remanded, 554 B.R. 635 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Lyondell 3"). According to the court, "[T]his test appropriately accounts for the distinct roles played by directors and officers under corporate law, while also factoring in the power certain officers and other actors may exercise over the corporation's decision to consummate a transaction" (citing Lyondell 1, 503 B.R. at 388).

In Lyondell 3, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling in Lyondell 2, holding that, under Delaware law, the knowledge and actions of a corporation's officers and directors are imputed to the corporation when the officers and directors are acting within the scope of their authority, even when the agents act fraudulently. The Tribune 2 court acknowledged the reversal but found the reasoning in Lyondell 2 to be "highly compelling." Moreover, the Tribune 2 court found Lyondell 3 to be distinguishable, noting that the allegations of control and profit motive in Lyondell 3 were significantly more compelling than in the case before it.

"To the extent that [Lyondell 3] also concluded that it was unnecessary for the trustee to allege control by the CEO to impute his intent to the transferor corporation," the Tribune 2 court wrote, "the Court disagrees." Noting that other courts applying federal law have also concluded that a finding of control is a prerequisite for imputation, the Tribune 2 court further observed that "even assuming, [as Lyondell 3] concluded, that Delaware law (as opposed to the Bankruptcy Code or federal common law) controls the imputation analysis, the relevant inquiry—and the outcome—would be the same."

The Tribune 2 court rejected the argument that only the directors' intent is relevant in assessing the corporation's intent because "it is too restrictive and 'effectively disregards any influence on the Board that [officers] may have exercised' " (quoting Lyondell 1, 503 B.R. at 386). The court also rejected the argument that an officer's intent is always attributable to the corporation in actual fraud cases.

Instead, the court held that, for the purpose of imputing fraud in this context, if a party who does not own a majority of a corporation's shares is alleged to control the corporation, the plaintiff must show " 'such formidable voting and managerial power that [he], as a practical matter, [is] no differently situated than if [he] had majority voting control' of the corporation's shares" (quoting In re Morton's Rest. Grp., Inc. Shareholders Litig., 74 A.3d 656, 665 (Del. Ch. 2013)).

The district court concluded that the Officers had neither voting power nor managerial control of Tribune. The court found, among other things, that: (i) although Tribune's CEO was affiliated with an entity which owned 13 percent of Tribune's stock, that percentage was far below the amount typically found to constitute "formidable" voting power under Delaware law; (ii) the Trustee failed to offer evidence that the Officers had the right to appoint directors, veto Board action, or remove or reduce compensation for Board members who did not vote in favor of the LBO; and (iii) because the Special Committee reviewed projections before approving the LBO, were advised by an independent financial advisor, and obtained solvency and viability opinions from outside experts, the Trustee's arguments that the Officers deceived—and thus controlled—the Special Committee by, among other things, creating inflated projections and flawed solvency opinions and manipulating information were unavailing.

The court also rejected the Trustee's argument that the Officers had misled Valuation Research into issuing a flawed solvency opinion, thereby indirectly deceiving the Board and the Special Committee. According to the court, "[A]llowing the Trustee's expansive conception of the imputation doctrine sweeps the corporate landscape too broadly." Relying on Tribune 1, the court concluded that the Trustee's "multi-layered imputation theory" would undermine Congress's policy of protecting securities markets by introducing substantial uncertainty to the law governing actual fraudulent transfer claims. "[G]iven the ease with which one could allege that the misrepresentation of a material fact—originating from any source—manipulated the board's decisionmaking," the court wrote, "it is important to confine the imputation doctrine to those actors who deliberately and directly exert control inside the boardroom."

Thus, the court ruled that, because the Officers did not exercise voting or managerial control, "the Trustee's attempt to impute the Officer Defendants' intent to the corporation is unjustified."

The Independent Directors

The Trustee alleged that the Independent Directors, who were delegated authority by the Board to approve the LBO and who were "clearly" in a position to control the outcome of the Board's vote, possessed fraudulent intent. On the basis of these allegations, the district court ruled that any intent to defraud on their part could be imputed to Tribune for purposes of the Trustee's fraudulent transfer claim.

The court explained that, in determining whether a party possesses actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, many courts apply: (1) the "purposeful harm test," whereby the plaintiff must provide either direct proof of actual intent or, because fraudulent intent is rarely susceptible to direct proof, a strong inference of fraudulent intent by relying on certain "badges of fraud"; or (2) the "securities law test," which requires either evidence that the debtor had both the motive and the opportunity to hinder, delay, or defraud its creditors or strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness. The court concluded that the Trustee failed to allege actual fraudulent intent on the part of the Independent Directors under either standard.

The district court also observed that some courts consider the following badges of fraud when determining whether an inference can be made to support a finding of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud:

(1) the lack or inadequacy of consideration; (2) the family, friendship or close associate relationship between the parties; (3) the retention of possession, benefit or use of the property in question; (4) the financial condition of the party sought to be charged both before and after the transaction in question; (5) the existence or cumulative effect of a pattern or series of transactions or course of conduct after the incurring of debt, onset of financial difficulties, or pendency or threat of suits by creditors; and (6) the general chronology of the events and transactions under inquiry.

In re Kaiser, 722 F.2d 1574, 1582 (2d Cir. 1983).

Among other things, the court rejected the argument that the Independent Directors acted with fraudulent intent because Tribune received less than reasonably equivalent value in connection with the LBO and because the LBO rendered Tribune insolvent. Allowing such allegations to raise a strong inference of fraudulent intent, the court wrote, would "turn every constructive fraudulent conveyance claim into an actual fraudulent conveyance claim and thereby undermine the distinction between the two claims."

The court acknowledged that the claim that an allegedly fraudulent transfer was made to an insider or "close associate" can support an inference of fraudulent intent. However, it found that the only proceeds that the Independent Directors received from the Shareholder Transfers were from selling their shares in Tribune and that "any inference of scienter that could be drawn from the Independent Directors' receipt of a miniscule fraction of the Shareholder Transfers is weak at best."

The court also rejected the argument that the fifth badge of fraud had been satisfied. It explained that LBOs, by their nature, are transactions outside the ordinary course of business which require the incurrence of new debt. Accepting the Trustee's argument, the court wrote, "would mean that every LBO that ends in a bankruptcy within two years of its effectuation would subject transferring shareholders to an actual fraudulent conveyance claim."

Addressing the securities law test, the court acknowledged that the Independent Directors had the motive and opportunity to hinder, delay, or defraud Tribune's creditors because the Independent Directors would receive consideration in exchange for their shares only if the LBO was consummated. However, the court concluded, "the mere fact that the Independent Directors received Shareholder Transfers in connection with the LBO fails to support a strong inference of scienter, since a corporate director's desire to realize personal benefits in connection with a merger is a motive shared by every corporate director in America."

The court rejected the Trustee's argument that the Independent Directors had acted recklessly when they approved the LBO. Because the Special Committee hired its own advisor and worked with the Board's advisors, the court explained, the Special Committee did not "blindly" accept the projections of Tribune's management. Moreover, the court noted, failure to conduct more rigorous downside testing of the LBO would support a finding of negligence, not conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

With respect to the subsidiary guaranties, the court stated that a company's guaranty of new debt which subordinates old debt cannot, by itself, provide sufficient evidence of actual fraudulent intent. Similarly, the court determined that, although the Independent Directors considered negative trends in the newspaper industry and concluded that the trends weighed in favor of the LBO, the Trustee's argument amounted to "little more than a meatless assertion that the Independent Directors should have known better," which was not enough to establish fraudulent intent.

On the basis of these findings, the court ruled that the Trustee had failed to plead facts sufficient to allege that the Independent Directors possessed actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Tribune's creditors through the LBO.

Outlook

Tribune 2 provides important guidance regarding the elements of an actual fraudulent transfer claim under section 548(a)(1)(A) as well as the circumstances under which the fraudulent intent of corporate actors may be imputed to the corporation. The ruling sets a high standard for imputing fraud.

The legal landscape is unsettled because the Tribune 2 fraud imputation standard differs from the approach adopted by the court in Lyondell 3. Both rulings considered whether the fraudulent intent of officers and directors can be imputed to a Delaware corporation for purposes of fraudulent transfer litigation, yet the courts disagreed as to whether control must be adequately alleged as a prerequisite to imputation and as to which law—Delaware or federal—should apply. Confusion on these issues is likely to remain unless and until the Second Circuit ultimately resolves them.

* * * * * * * * * *

Jones Day represents certain of the defendants in the Tribune fraudulent transfer litigation.

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
Mark G. Douglas
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
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