In re Plotkin v. Pomona Valley Imports, Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit
199 B.R. 709 (1996)
- Written by Ryan Hill, JD
Facts
Stanley Cohen (debtor) operated a Ponzi scheme involving luxury cars. Cohen would convince buyers that he could acquire luxury cars for substantially less than market value. A group of buyers would pay Cohen at the reduced price, and Cohen then purchased as many cars as he could with the accumulated money at full retail price. Cohen paid the dealers with checks that were honored by Cohen’s bank and had the dealers deliver the cars to the individuals he designated. The scheme always left several unlucky buyers without cars, and eventually it collapsed. In a subsequent bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy trustee sued the dealers, seeking to avoid 17 transactions as fraudulent transfers. The trustee argued that Cohen’s buyers each received a fraudulent transfer in the amount of the difference between Cohen’s phony price and the car’s true retail price. The trustee filed one proceeding for seven transactions under § 548 of the bankruptcy code, and filed a separate proceeding for the other 10 transfers under California’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA). The dealers moved for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court granted the dealers’ motions, holding that the transfers were not fraudulent because the transfers were good-faith exchanges for fair value.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Klein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
