Fraudulent Conveyance Defendants Seek Dismissal Based on Alleged Non-Existence of Promissory Note
Download the full pdf of the motion by clicking: here
September 06, 2022, US Bankruptcy Court for Northern Texas – Defendants Dolphin Direct Equity Partners, L.P. (“DDEP”), Dolphin Advisors, LLC (“Dolphin Advisors”), and Peter E. Salas (“Mr. Salas”) file a motion for summary judgment against the complaint of Anne Elizabeth Burns, the trustee (“Trustee”) of Hoactzin Partners, L.P. (“Debtor”). The complaint seeks to avoid and recover three alleged transfers made from the Debtor to the Defendants, including the alleged transfer of a promissory note, which the Trustee alleges to have a face value of $8,625,000.
The Defendants’ motion seeks a judgment under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants deny the existence of the Trustee’s alleged promissory note. The Defendants claim that the Trustee’s complaint allegedly does not provide enough factual support to the allegation of the transfer of any alleged promissory note. The Defendants further contend that the Trustee alleges the transfer to have occurred more than two years before the bankruptcy petition date. The motion claims that the Trustee is allegedly barred from recovering the transfer, if any, under section 548(a)(1) “outside the two-year lookback period”.
The Trustee also alleges that Mr. Salas allegedly holds equity in Dolphin Advisors and DDEP through Dolphin Management, LLC. The Defendants contend that the Trustee would have to “veil-pierce” Dolphin Management to prove her allegation. However, the Defendants claim that the Trustee allegedly cannot “pierce the corporate veil” of Dolphin Management as it is “non-party” to the case.
Burns, Trustee v. Dolphin Direct Equity Partners, L.P., et al., AP No. 21-03078, US Bankruptcy Court for Northern Texas
