Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/in%20bco%2020100331b26
Timestamp: 2014-10-01 16:16:24
Document Index: 48295477

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 117', '§ 117', '§ 548', '§ 544', '§ 544']

IN RE TRONOX INC. | Leagle.com Home
Citing Case IN RE TRONOX INC.
14. In , 632-33 (10th Cir. BAP 2003), the Court discusses as "the key distinction between § 116(A)(2) and 117" the fact that § 116(A)(2) "determines transfers that are fraudulent to present future creditors while § 117 determines transfers that are fraudulent to present creditors only." It concludes that "the language of § 117(A) parallels the constructive fraud provision of § 548(a)(1)(B)(I) and (ii)(I)." 299 B.R. at 626. Section 544(b) permits the estate representative to prosecute claims on behalf of the bankruptcy estate.
15. As notes, contingent liabilities such as those for environmental obligations "must be reduced to present value for determining whether debtor is insolvent" and the trier of fact must "determine the likelihood that the contingency will occur." 299 B.R. at 639, n. 55.
17. , 303 n. 3, 304 (6th Cir. BAP 2009) (trustee could avoid installment payments under § 544(b) made within reachback period although underlying contract was signed outside of reachback period); , 503 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2007) ("[T]he Court holds that, if it were necessary ... then the Court would reject such holding in "); , 267-68 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.2009)(declining to apply the relevant portion of characterizing it as "contrary to the unambiguous language of 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)").
18. Under New York choice of law rules, when the plaintiff is not a New York resident, the applicable statute of limitations is the shorter of (1) New York's period of limitations or (2) the statute of limitations in the state where the cause of action accrued. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 202. There seems to be no dispute that the claim arose in Oklahoma. New York's three-year statute of limitations is longer than Oklahoma's two-year statute and the same as Oklahoma's three-year statute. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 213, 214(4). Thus, the Oklahoma statute applies to the instant case.
19. Under Oklahoma law "the question of when or if a plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged wrongdoing is one of fact." , 813 (Okla.1995).
20. A third limitation was imposed by that the doctrine cannot be relied on by creditors of the corporation rather than the corporation itself. , 264 (Okla. 1995). This limitation is not relevant as Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of the corporate entities.
22. There is also no contention that any other law other than New York's would provide a different result. , 106 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2001).
23. While the Complaint demands punitive damages in the counts alleging constructive fraudulent conveyance, Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants' argument, which is correct, that punitive damages are unavailable in connection with these claims. , 57 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1994) ("Fraudulent transfer laws are intended to promote payment to creditors; that is, the statutes are remedial, rather than punitive."); , 176 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1998) ("Section 550(a) is intended to restore the estate to the financial condition it would have enjoyed if the transfer had not occurred.").
24. , 900 n. 3 (Mo.Ct. App.2001), noting that Missouri and Ohio allow punitive damages for actual fraudulent transfer claims, but Connecticut does not.
25. There are several cases outside of Oklahoma also holding that a fraudulent conveyance case does not sound in tort. , 384 (E.D.N.Y.1973) (holding that "the right upon which an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is based is not the right to recover damages sustained from the wrongful action of the grantee, but rather the right of the creditor to protect and preserve his interest in the debtor's property. This right would appear to be founded in equity, not in tort."); , 891-92 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003); , 871 (D.P.R.1987).