2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-21-2007 

# U SA v . C h a n g P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3630

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . C h a n g " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 399. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/399

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________ No. 06-3630

__________ JOYCE P. CHANG, ELAINE Y. CHANG a/k/a ELAINE Y. DARER, MICHAEL T. CHANG, and CHERYL A. CHERNE, Defendants - Appellants , vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee .

__________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 02-4834) District Judge: Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.

__________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 20, 2007 Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and GARTH, Circuit Judges . (Opinion Filed: September 21, 2007)

__________ OPINION

__________-1- 

### Re: GARTH, Circuit Judge This appeal essentially involved a fraudulent transfer of monies where no consideration was paid by the recipients. Th e facts, which are somewhat convoluted, are taken primarily from the District Court’s opini on, inasmuch as the briefs of the parties were not helpful in this respect. However, in asmuch as we write only for the parties, we will not describe the facts in detail but only in summary fashion. The defendant, David Chang, the father of the three Chang children, and a close friend, Cheryl Cherne, received a total of $525,000 from David Chang through his two alter ego corporations, “Saska Corpor ation” and “Dakota Management, Inc.” The defendant, David Chang, through his a lter ego company, “River Road Realty Development Corp.,” had gene rated over $17 million from the sale of a property. After the payment of various costs, liens and expenses, the defendant, David Chang, paid $441,750 into “Dakota”and $1,630,832.99 into “S aska.” Thereafter, “Saska” sent $150,000 to Joyce Chang and $120,000 to Michae l Chang. Later “Saska” paid $120,000 to Elaine Chang and “Dakota” paid $75,000 to Cheryl Cherne. “Dakota” also paid $60,000 to Elaine Chang. No consideration was given for any of these transfers which total the sum of $525,000 noted above. At th e time of the transfers, David Chang was insolvent.-2- 

### The Small Business Administration holds two judgments against the defendant, David Chang. One in the amount of 2.1 m illion dollars and the second in the aggregate amount of approximately $995,000. The govern ment, on behalf of the Small Business Administration to whom David Chang owedmonies, sought to recover the $525,000 as fraudulent transfers under New Jersey law. Various defenses were raised by the defendants, largely centered on the fact that David Chang was not the alter ego of his entities; that David Chang’s payments were to satisfy financial obligations to his children; that David Chang had a debt oblig ation to Cheryl Cherne, that David Chang was not insolvent; etc., etc. In a reasoned and well crafted opinion the District Court rejected all of David Chang’s defenses and granted summary judgm ent in favor of the United States. In our review, we applied the same plenary standardthat the District Court applied. Having independently examined the record and the briefs, we are satisfied that the District Court’s opinion and Judgment shoul d be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion. The Order granting summary judgment infavor of the United States will be affirmed.