No State Sovereign Immunity Against Section 544 Avoidance Actions

by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Contact

On January 27, 2012, Judge Peter J. Walsh of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that states do not have sovereign immunity from fraudulent transfer actions brought by a liquidation trustee pursuant to section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and incorporated state laws.  Zazzali v. Swenson (In re DBSI, Inc.), 463 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012).  This decision clarifies the application of the United States’ Supreme Court’s decision in Cent. Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006) to section 544 and the various state laws incorporated by a cause of action brought pursuant to that section.

The trustee of the debtors’ liquidation trust commenced an adversary proceeding to recover allegedly fraudulent transfers made by various of the debtors’ insiders to 22 states pursuant to, inter alia, section 544(b)(1) and applicable Idaho fraudulent transfer law.  Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code grants a bankruptcy trustee the power to “avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property . . . that is voidable under applicable law by a creditor holding an unsecured claim . . . .”  11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1).  In other words, section 544(b) allows a trustee to assert state law fraudulent transfer claims, if an actual unsecured creditor could assert the same causes of action outside of bankruptcy.

The defendant states moved to dismiss the trustee’s section 544 counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the states did not waive their sovereign immunity with respect to the Idaho statutes incorporated by section 544.  In response, the trustee argued that, as provided by section 106(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, state sovereign immunity is abrogated with respect to section 544 and, by implication, the applicable Idaho statutes.

The Court found that its decision in this case was controlled by Katz, where the Supreme Court held that state sovereign immunity is abrogated with respect to actions to avoid preferential transfers pursuant to sections 547(b) and 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.  To establish whether states’ sovereign immunity was abrogated with respect to section 544, the Court found that it must, pursuant to Katz, “determine (1) whether those who crafted the Bankruptcy Clause intended to give Congress the power to authorize courts to avoid fraudulent transfers and recover the relevant property, and (2) whether there is a relevant law on the subject of bankruptcy that Congress applied to the [states] and other creditors in the same way.”  DBSI, 463 B.R. at 712 (citing Katz, 546 U.S. at 372, 379).  Applying this standard, the Court found that the states’ sovereign immunity defense failed.

The Court first determined that “avoiding fraudulent transfers and recovering the attendant property fell within the scope of Congress’ understood authorizing power.”  Id. at 715.  The Court’s analysis was informed by the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Katz that avoiding preferential transfers was a core aspect of bankruptcy administration since at least the 18th century, and therefore the Framers would have understood that the Bankruptcy Clause grants Congress the power to authorize courts to avoid such transactions.  The Court determined that avoiding fraudulent transfers had similar historical roots (as the Supreme Court also concluded in Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 43 (1989)), and is clearly within the scope of Congress’ authorizing power under the Bankruptcy Clause.

Finally, the Court held there is a relevant law on the subject of bankruptcy that Congress applies to states and other creditors equally that authorizes courts to avoid fraudulent transfers: specifically section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that state sovereign immunity is abrogated with respect to section 544.  The Court determined that section 106(a) reflected a Congressional intent that section 544 apply to both states and other creditors with equal force.  In so holding, the Court rejected the states’ argument that section 106(a)’s abrogation of sovereign immunity did not include the state law causes of action that are incorporated into section 544 (as opposed to section 544 itself), finding that because state law is a necessary element of a section 544 action, this result would be absurd and render the abrogation of sovereign immunity with respect to section 544 meaningless.  The Court also rejected the states’ argument that section 544(b)(1) is not a uniform law on the subject of bankruptcy because it permits the application of differing state fraudulent transfer laws, finding that the enforcement of varying states’ laws in bankruptcy raises no constitutional concerns and that fraudulent transfer statutes are, in any event, practically uniform amongst the fifty states.

This decision makes clear that the state sovereign immunity defense is meritless with respect to section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Furthermore, by reaffirming the central tenet of Katz, that “[n]o state sovereign immunity protection exists in proceedings pursuant to laws on the subject of bankruptcies, where such laws are properly labeled,” the decision likely negates any assertion of sovereign immunity with respect to the other Bankruptcy Code sections explicitly referenced in section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Contact
more
less

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.