Liebmann v. Pucci (In Re Ampat Southern Corp.)

128 B.R. 405, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 857, 1991 WL 111458
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland
DecidedJune 4, 1991
Docket19-12566
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 128 B.R. 405 (Liebmann v. Pucci (In Re Ampat Southern Corp.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liebmann v. Pucci (In Re Ampat Southern Corp.), 128 B.R. 405, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 857, 1991 WL 111458 (Md. 1991).

Opinion

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 *407 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 1 and 543 2 , which require turnover of property of the bank *408 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 3 permits the *409 bankruptcy trustee to avoid preferences and Section 548 4 provides for the avoid- *410 anee of fraudulent transfers. Section 550 5 provides for the recovery of the property *411 from a transferee, after the avoidance of the transfers pursuant to Sections 544-549, 553(b) or 724(a). Section 105 6 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 B.R. 405, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 857, 1991 WL 111458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebmann-v-pucci-in-re-ampat-southern-corp-mdb-1991.