섹터
기업
지적 재산
소송
수년간의 소송 끝에 폴리 앤 라드너 LLP는 제7장 파산관리인 더글러스 맨이 LSQ 펀딩 그룹을 상대로 제기한 이의신청에 대해 미국 대법원에 상고허가청구를 제기하는 것을 성공적으로 방어하며, 맨이 LSQ를 상대로 제기한 우선변제권 및 사기적 양도 주장에 대한 최종 종결을 이끌어냈다. 대법원은 2024년 1월 8일 맨의 청구를 기각하였다.
In the underlying litigation, Mann asserted preference and fraudulent transfer claims against LSQ in the bankruptcy case of Engstrom Inc. Mann alleged that Engstrom was engaged in a Ponzi-like scheme of factoring worthless invoices with LSQ. When another financier stepped into the relationship, LSQ received a $10.3 million payoff directly from that third party. Engstrom never received or had any control over those funds. Shortly thereafter, Engstrom filed for bankruptcy.
Foley initially prevailed on summary judgment before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which held that, under the “earmarking doctrine,” the funds that LSQ received did not constitute an “interest of the debtor in property” under Sections 544, 547, and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not be the subject of preference or fraudulent transfer claims. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed that decision.
In the petition, Mann argued that the earmarking doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfer claims, suggesting that the appellate courts are divided on the issue. LSQ responded that no circuit split exists on that issue and that an “interest of the debtor in property” for all avoidance actions must be defined as “property that would have been part of the estate had it not been transferred” before the bankruptcy. Under this appropriate standard, the funds LSQ received were never part of Engstrom’s estate because LSQ was paid directly from the third-party financier and, therefore, the transfer “did not satisfy this common statutory prerequisite for avoidance actions.”
The Foley team representing LSQ was led by partners Thomas Shriner and Andrew Wronski and included senior counsel Anne-Louise Mittal and Max Meckstroth.
