In re Hypnotic Taxi, LLC
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York
543 B.R. 365 (2016)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Attorney and taxi mogul Evgeny Freidman (defendant) borrowed over $30 million from Citibank (plaintiff) secured by taxi medallions (permits to operate taxis in New York). The medallions’ value plummeted after companies like Uber entered the market. When Freidman defaulted on the loans, Citibank seized the medallions, and Hypnotic Taxi, LLC and other companies holding the medallions (debtors) filed for bankruptcy. Citibank sought to collect on Freidman’s personal guarantees by attaching Freidman’s real estate. Freidman set up offshore trusts with himself, children, and parents as beneficiaries, then transferred all attachable assets into the trusts. Almost six months later, the trustees had done nothing, and Freidman retained possession and control of his real estate. The court held a hearing to determine whether Freidman made the transfers with intent to defraud creditors, meaning Citibank could still attach the assets. Freidman testified that he was estate planning to support his children, but the court found him unbelievable. Freidman argued that other assets, largely the taxi medallions, could still satisfy the debt. Freidman also argued that Citibank could not attach property he did not own, failed to join third parties, and had to specify the attachable property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Craig, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.
