Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Chris Lazarini Discusses Fraudulent Transfers During Broker Bankruptcy Filing

Securities Online Litigation Alert

Publications

February 1, 2018

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case involving an arbitration award and bankruptcy filing. The court ruled that where a bankruptcy action has been closed, the bankruptcy trustee's exclusive authority to pursue a claim on behalf of the bankruptcy estate has expired and, absent the trustee affirmatively acting to re-open the case, an unsecured creditor may pursue a fraudulent transfer-voidance claim in state court where permitted by state law. 

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Online Litigation Alert (SOLA). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SOLA, please visit the SOLA website to sign up for the newsletter.

Forster vs. Theis, No. A17-0459 (Minn. App., 12/18/17) 

Where a bankruptcy action has been closed, the bankruptcy trustee's exclusive authority to pursue a claim on behalf of the bankruptcy estate has expired and, absent the trustee affirmatively acting to re-open the case, an unsecured creditor may pursue a fraudulent transfer-voidance claim in state court where permitted by state law. 

In March 2013, a FINRA panel awarded the Forsters $290,000 against their broker, David Theis (ID #12-01157 (Minneapolis, 3/15/13)). The Award was converted to a judgment, after which Theis sought protection from creditors in the bankruptcy court. The Forsters' judgment was excepted from discharge due to Theis' fraud, and the bankruptcy action was later closed. The Forsters then sought to pursue a fraudulent transfer voidance claim under the Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA) against Theis' wife and his former business partner and the company he had owned with Theis ("Appellants"). The state district court found that it had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the MUFTA claims and Appellees had standing to bring them, rejecting Appellants' motion for summary judgment. This interlocutory appeal, challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, followed.

The state Court of Appeals recognizes the general rule, under the federal Bankruptcy Code, that while a bankruptcy action is pending, the bankruptcy trustee has exclusive authority to void fraudulent transfers on behalf of the estate and its creditors, and that individual creditors are barred from pursuing a fraudulent transfer voidance action to the extent their claims are derivative. Here, however, the general rule is not applicable because the bankruptcy trustee took no action on the Forsters' claim and the bankruptcy action was closed. Ruling that the time limit for the bankruptcy trustee to seek avoidance lapsed when the bankruptcy action was closed, the Court declines to entertain Appellants' theoretical argument that the trustee could reopen the case and pursue the claim under the doctrine of equitable tolling.

Finally, the Court reiterates that, absent an existing bankruptcy action (which was closed), and given that the time for the trustee to act has expired, there is no exclusive jurisdiction in the Bankruptcy Court to hear the fraudulent-transfer voidance claim; therefore, the state district court has jurisdiction to do so to the extent such a claim is allowed under state law. Further, the Court affirms that Appellees, as unsecured creditors, have standing to bring such a claim.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.