MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINT
JAMES F. SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge.
The issue in this case is whether a cause of action was sufficiently stated by a complaint filed by the bankruptcy trustee of a debtor corporation to, recover fraudulent transfers, preferences, and/or damages from one who as both officer and director of the corporation allegedly caused funds of the debtor to be transferred to the debt- or’s corporate affiliate within one year before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The Court finds that the complaint must be dismissed on two grounds: (1) the complaint, which is based upon Sections 542, 543, 547, 548, 550 and 105 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Maryland Fraudulent Conveyance Act, Md.Com.Law.Code §§ 15-201,
et seq.,
is fatally flawed because it seeks the recovery of preferences or fraudulent conveyances from a non-transferee; and (2) under the agreed facts of this case, the defendant is innocent of the charges made in the complaint that he committed a breach of duty of loyalty and care as an officer and director under Maryland corporation law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The instant bankruptcy case was filed as a voluntary Chapter 11 on February 6, 1986.
2. On March 5, 1986, the case was converted to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 and George W. Liebmann was appointed Chapter 7 trustee [P. 20].
3. The debtor, Ampat/Southern Corporation, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ampat Group, Inc., which in turn was a wholly-owned subsidiary of GEMCO National, Inc. The debtor’s affiliate was Am-pat/Eastem Corporation. The debtor was engaged in the custom design, fabrication and installation of metal and glass products for the construction industry.
4. The trustee sued GEMCO in a complaint filed in this Court [Adv. No. 86-0163B] on June 12, 1986 for turnover of funds in the amount of $719,632 and the avoidance of certain fraudulent transfers in the amount of $2,193,952, among other claims.
5. On July 8, 1987, this Court approved a settlement between the trustee and GEM-CO by which the parties agreed that GEM-CO would pay to the trustee the sum of $75,000, 67 shares of “letter” stock in GEMCO, amounts received in excess of $105,442 from pending tax refund claims
and funds to be received from Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., [Ampat’s surety for certain bonded jobs], estimated to be between $12,000 and $40,000, and certain other funds, in return for which the trustee agreed to dismiss the complaint against GEMCO and covenanted not to sue any of the then-directors and officers of GEMCO or the debtor's affiliate, Ampat/Eastern Corporation, or its estate. The trustee expressly reserved the right to sue F. Michael Pucci “based on the same losses and against a large directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy covering him.” Notice of settlement [P. 14] dated December 19, 1986.
6. Pursuant to the settlement terms, GEMCO paid the trustee $252,187.50.
7. On February 3, 1988, the trustee filed the instant complaint against F. Michael Pucci. The complaint is entitled “COMPLAINT TO RECOVER FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS AND DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.”
8. The complaint alleged that the defendant was, at various times, “a manager, officer and director for Ampat Southern Corporation” who “counseled and caused the debtor to transfer certain monies to other insiders and affiliates, including Am-pat Eastern Corporation at a time when Ampat Southern Corporation was insolvent or was rendered insolvent by such transfers ...” Complaint, paragraph 4. The amount of such transfers was alleged to have been $2,193,952 in 1985. Additionally, the defendant was charged with having “refrained ... from collecting $719,632 standing to Ampat Southern’s credit on the books of GEMCO National, Inc.”
Id.
9. The complaint charged that “[s]uch transfers were made of the debtor’s assets with actual intent to defraud creditors of the debtor,” that “such transfers were made for the benefit of Ampat Eastern Corporation and/or GEMCO National Corporation [sic],” that these transfers “did not involve dishonesty or personal profit on the part of [Mr.] Pucci, but were made for his benefit as an officer and director of the transferees.”
Id.,
paragraph 5. The making of such transfers was alleged to have been “in breach of [Mr.] Pucci’s duty of loyalty and care as an officer and director of debtor.”
Id.,
paragraph 6.
10. The complaint cites as its authority Bankruptcy Code Sections 542, 543, 547, 548, 550 and 105.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sections 542
and 543
, which require turnover of property of the bank
ruptcy estate to the trustee are not applicable to this complaint because it is not alleged that the defendant is in possession of such property. Section 547
permits the
bankruptcy trustee to avoid preferences and Section 548
provides for the avoid-
anee of fraudulent transfers. Section 550
provides for the recovery of the property
from a transferee, after the avoidance of the transfers pursuant to Sections 544-549, 553(b) or 724(a). Section 105
is the provision which empowers the bankruptcy court to take whatever action is required to effectuate the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
2. To the extent that the instant complaint seeks the recovery of property of the debtor from this defendant which he allegedly caused to be transferred to another, the complaint is defective. A number of courts have held that a bankruptcy trustee cannot recover fraudulent transfers from other than the transferees.
Elliott v. Glushon,
390 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1967);
Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency,
685 F.2d 729 (1st Cir.1982). Because it is alleged that the defendant personally received none of the property transferred, he has no liability for its return as a matter of law under the sections of the Bankruptcy Code cited in the complaint.
3. The trustee may not do indirectly what he cannot do directly. If it is acknowledged that the trustee may not recover fraudulent transfers from a non-transferee, then it follows that he may not recover funds in the same amount by the mere expedient of referring to them by a different name, i.e. “damages.” The amount sought from the defendant
as damages
is the exact same amount sought from him as the sum of fraudulent conveyances, namely $2,661,396.50 ($2,193,952 + $719,632 less the $252,187.50 paid to the trustee by GEMCO).
4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINT
JAMES F. SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge.
The issue in this case is whether a cause of action was sufficiently stated by a complaint filed by the bankruptcy trustee of a debtor corporation to, recover fraudulent transfers, preferences, and/or damages from one who as both officer and director of the corporation allegedly caused funds of the debtor to be transferred to the debt- or’s corporate affiliate within one year before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The Court finds that the complaint must be dismissed on two grounds: (1) the complaint, which is based upon Sections 542, 543, 547, 548, 550 and 105 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Maryland Fraudulent Conveyance Act, Md.Com.Law.Code §§ 15-201,
et seq.,
is fatally flawed because it seeks the recovery of preferences or fraudulent conveyances from a non-transferee; and (2) under the agreed facts of this case, the defendant is innocent of the charges made in the complaint that he committed a breach of duty of loyalty and care as an officer and director under Maryland corporation law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The instant bankruptcy case was filed as a voluntary Chapter 11 on February 6, 1986.
2. On March 5, 1986, the case was converted to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 and George W. Liebmann was appointed Chapter 7 trustee [P. 20].
3. The debtor, Ampat/Southern Corporation, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ampat Group, Inc., which in turn was a wholly-owned subsidiary of GEMCO National, Inc. The debtor’s affiliate was Am-pat/Eastem Corporation. The debtor was engaged in the custom design, fabrication and installation of metal and glass products for the construction industry.
4. The trustee sued GEMCO in a complaint filed in this Court [Adv. No. 86-0163B] on June 12, 1986 for turnover of funds in the amount of $719,632 and the avoidance of certain fraudulent transfers in the amount of $2,193,952, among other claims.
5. On July 8, 1987, this Court approved a settlement between the trustee and GEM-CO by which the parties agreed that GEM-CO would pay to the trustee the sum of $75,000, 67 shares of “letter” stock in GEMCO, amounts received in excess of $105,442 from pending tax refund claims
and funds to be received from Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., [Ampat’s surety for certain bonded jobs], estimated to be between $12,000 and $40,000, and certain other funds, in return for which the trustee agreed to dismiss the complaint against GEMCO and covenanted not to sue any of the then-directors and officers of GEMCO or the debtor's affiliate, Ampat/Eastern Corporation, or its estate. The trustee expressly reserved the right to sue F. Michael Pucci “based on the same losses and against a large directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy covering him.” Notice of settlement [P. 14] dated December 19, 1986.
6. Pursuant to the settlement terms, GEMCO paid the trustee $252,187.50.
7. On February 3, 1988, the trustee filed the instant complaint against F. Michael Pucci. The complaint is entitled “COMPLAINT TO RECOVER FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS AND DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.”
8. The complaint alleged that the defendant was, at various times, “a manager, officer and director for Ampat Southern Corporation” who “counseled and caused the debtor to transfer certain monies to other insiders and affiliates, including Am-pat Eastern Corporation at a time when Ampat Southern Corporation was insolvent or was rendered insolvent by such transfers ...” Complaint, paragraph 4. The amount of such transfers was alleged to have been $2,193,952 in 1985. Additionally, the defendant was charged with having “refrained ... from collecting $719,632 standing to Ampat Southern’s credit on the books of GEMCO National, Inc.”
Id.
9. The complaint charged that “[s]uch transfers were made of the debtor’s assets with actual intent to defraud creditors of the debtor,” that “such transfers were made for the benefit of Ampat Eastern Corporation and/or GEMCO National Corporation [sic],” that these transfers “did not involve dishonesty or personal profit on the part of [Mr.] Pucci, but were made for his benefit as an officer and director of the transferees.”
Id.,
paragraph 5. The making of such transfers was alleged to have been “in breach of [Mr.] Pucci’s duty of loyalty and care as an officer and director of debtor.”
Id.,
paragraph 6.
10. The complaint cites as its authority Bankruptcy Code Sections 542, 543, 547, 548, 550 and 105.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sections 542
and 543
, which require turnover of property of the bank
ruptcy estate to the trustee are not applicable to this complaint because it is not alleged that the defendant is in possession of such property. Section 547
permits the
bankruptcy trustee to avoid preferences and Section 548
provides for the avoid-
anee of fraudulent transfers. Section 550
provides for the recovery of the property
from a transferee, after the avoidance of the transfers pursuant to Sections 544-549, 553(b) or 724(a). Section 105
is the provision which empowers the bankruptcy court to take whatever action is required to effectuate the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
2. To the extent that the instant complaint seeks the recovery of property of the debtor from this defendant which he allegedly caused to be transferred to another, the complaint is defective. A number of courts have held that a bankruptcy trustee cannot recover fraudulent transfers from other than the transferees.
Elliott v. Glushon,
390 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1967);
Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency,
685 F.2d 729 (1st Cir.1982). Because it is alleged that the defendant personally received none of the property transferred, he has no liability for its return as a matter of law under the sections of the Bankruptcy Code cited in the complaint.
3. The trustee may not do indirectly what he cannot do directly. If it is acknowledged that the trustee may not recover fraudulent transfers from a non-transferee, then it follows that he may not recover funds in the same amount by the mere expedient of referring to them by a different name, i.e. “damages.” The amount sought from the defendant
as damages
is the exact same amount sought from him as the sum of fraudulent conveyances, namely $2,661,396.50 ($2,193,952 + $719,632 less the $252,187.50 paid to the trustee by GEMCO).
4. The trustee cannot prevail in his attack based upon the defendant’s alleged breach of duty. There is no evidence to support such a charge. Mr. Pucci was acting on orders of GEMCO National, Inc., the debtor’s parent corporation, (with which the trustee settled his complaint for avoidance of fraudulent transfers and turnover of funds totalling some $2,913,584 in return for the payment of $252,187.50).
5. The complaint acknowledges that Mr. Pucci derived “no personal profit” from these transfers, but that he received an indirect benefit “as an officer and director of transferees.” If this is true, then the other officers and directors of GEMCO, who the trustee covenanted not to sue upon the payment to him by GEMCO of $252,-187.50, should also be subject to suit. However, in reality, the kind of indirect benefit which the trustee claimed was received cannot be shown, according to the following hypothetical. A, who is a director of X Corporation, transfers $1 from the funds of X Corporation to its affiliate, Y Corporation, of which A is also a director. Result: No net benefit to A. In any event, the failure of the complaint to allege any personal benefit to Mr. Pucci is merely one more reason to dismiss it for failure to state a cause of action.
6. At the hearing held on February 12, 1991, counsel for the trustee candidly acknowledged that Mr. Pucci had indeed made efforts to collect $719,632 from GEM-CO, effectively negating the trustee’s charge that Mr. Pucci “refrained and fore-bore from collecting $719.632 standing to Ampat Southern Corporation’s credit on the books of GEMCO National, Inc.”
7. The agreed facts belie the trustee’s allegation that transfers were made “with
actual intent to defraud creditors of the debtor.” All of the facts on file show that transfers were made to help the debtor’s affiliate, Ampat Eastern and the debtor’s parent, GEMCO National, Inc., and not for any fraudulent purpose.
8. The final blow to the trustee’s complaint is a Maryland case,
Burkhart v. Smith,
161 Md. 398, 157 A. 299 (1931), which held that one who was director, president and majority stockholder of a bankrupt corporation was not personally liable to the bankruptcy trustee for transferring corporate assets to another corporation of which he was also majority stockholder, president and director, where the defendant derived no personal profit from the transfer and was motivated solely by a desire to aid his other ailing enterprise. The Maryland Court of Appeals stated:
Smith was in the position of a trustee or agent of the Chesapeake Company, and his liability, if any, must rest upon a finding of waste of the assets by what has been described as “fraud or malfeasance, or such gross negligence as may amount to a breach of trust,” “by gross negligence and inattention to the duties of their trust,” or by failure to exercise “ ‘the same degree of care and prudence that men prompted by self-interest generally exercise in their own affairs’ under like circumstances.”
Booth v. Robinson,
55 Md. 419;
Fisher v. Parr,
92 Md. 245, 264, 48 A. 621, 623;
Gill v. Ash,
124 Md. 612, 619, 93 A. 210, 212. The measure of care and prudence required can hardly be defined accurately, and so as to furnish the solvent for all controversies in particular cases of complaints against officers and directors. It is plain, however, that the law does not make an officer or director liable to repay losses caused by any and every departure from what the court, after the event, might consider to be good judgment. There must be something more. If there is no conscious betrayal of the trust reposed, there must be such neglect or misconduct as amounts to a betrayal of the trust. And we concur with the judge of the lower court in his finding that the facts presented in this case do not justify a finding of either fraud or negligence, or misconduct of the kind described.
157 A. at 301.
From the foregoing analysis, and based upon all of the pleadings, memoranda and transcripts filed herein, this Court concludes that the defendant’s motions for summary judgment and for dismissal ought to be granted and the instant complaint is accordingly dismissed.
ORDER ACCORDINGLY.