Golf Channel Defense in Ponzi Scheme-Related Clawback Defies Texas Law, Receiver Says
The Golf Channel's (TGC) proposed eight-part test to determine value flies in the face of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), said appellant Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver of Stanford International Bank, in a post-submission brief filed Wednesday with…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
the Texas Supreme Court. The state court is tackling a question from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2015 asked for a court ruling on TUFTA and reversed its previous ruling tossing out Janvey's suit against TGC (see 1507010036). Janvey sued TGC in 2011, trying to claw back the money given it by Stanford -- which was the focal point of what the 5th Circuit called an "undisputed ... multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme." While it operated, Stanford was the title sponsor of a PGA Tour event held yearly in Memphis, and subsequently bought advertisements on TGC. Oral argument was held Jan. 12 before the Texas Supreme Court, and Janvey said the brief was an attempt to clarify issues that came up then. Pointing to Section 24.009(a) of TUFTA, Janvey said the Supreme Court should answer the 5th Circuit's TUFTA question by saying that to prevail on an affirmative defense a transferee needs to prove the debtor received some value "that was reasonably equivalent to the assets transferred by the debtor to the transferee." TGC didn't comment Thursday.