Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. v. Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc.

2016 WL 4991623 (2016)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. v. Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2016 WL 4991623 (2016)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Lender Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. (Arrowhead) (plaintiff) sued Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc., and affiliate Seven Arts Entertainment Louisiana (collectively SAE) (defendants) to recover a $2.5 million judgment Arrowhead obtained against SAE’s bankrupt predecessors. Peter Hoffman formed five film-related companies incorporating the name “Seven Arts” over a 12-year period and was chief executive officer or managing director of all the companies. Hoffman incorporated Seven Arts Pictures, Inc. (SAP), in Nevada in 2002. In 2004, Hoffman acquired a business in the United Kingdom, renamed it Seven Arts Pictures PLC (PLC), and formed wholly owned subsidiary Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Limited (SAFE), which purchased all SAP’s assets. In 2006, Hoffman signed a promissory note on behalf of SAP, PLC, and SAFE to repay Arrowhead $1 million. In 2010, PLC moved to Nevada by transferring all its assets to SAE, including all the shares of SAFE, making PLC SAE’s wholly owned subsidiary. In regulatory filings, PLC said SAE had acquired some of PLC’s debts and that the transfer would not materially change PLC’s business or operations. In January 2012, Hoffman transferred all SAFE’s assets to SAE, again with filings that acknowledged SAE was continuing PLC’s business as its successor. In sum, SAP sold all its assets to SAFE, which sold all its assets to SAE. Their shares went directly to the shareholders of the acquiring companies, bypassing creditors and leaving SAP and SAFE without assets and unable to pay debts. Both entities went through involuntary liquidation proceedings in the United Kingdom, but creditors recovered nothing. Meanwhile, SAP, PLC, and SAFE defaulted on the Arrowhead note. Arrowhead obtained a $2.5 million judgment against SAP and SAFE and sued SAE to collect. Both sides moved for summary judgment. In part, Arrowhead requested a declaration that SAE had assumed PLC’s obligations under the note.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Polk Failla, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership