United States: Tousa III, Lenders Beware? Eleventh Circuit Upholds Bankruptcy Court’s Original Fraudulent Transfer Decision

Previously published May 17, 2012

Keywords: TOUSA III, bankruptcy code, petition date, transeastern lenders

On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Circuit Court") issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,1 in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the "Conveying Subsidiaries") to secure new loans (the "New Term Loans") incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the "Transeastern Lenders") were avoidable fraudulent transfers. The bankruptcy court also found that the payoff to the Transeastern Lenders from the New Term Loan proceeds was subject to clawback.

On appeal, the district court had reversed the bankruptcy court on every major issue.2 In reversing the district court this past Tuesday, the Circuit Court gave significant deference to the original factual findings of the bankruptcy court. The Circuit Court framed the two key issues on appeal as follows:

  • The "Reasonably Equivalent Value" Issue: Whether the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the Conveying Subsidiaries did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for pledging their assets to secure the New Term Loans; and
  • The "For Whose Benefit" Issue: Whether the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the Transeastern Lenders were entities for whose benefit the liens were transferred. On the first issue, the Circuit Court focused narrowly on the evidentiary record and the posttrial factual findings of the bankruptcy court, in turn sidestepping the open legal question of what constitutes value in the context of upstream guaranties. On the second issue, the Circuit Court's decision, while arguably consistent with existing Eleventh Circuit precedent, appears to broaden the pool of potential defendants in avoidance actions under the Bankruptcy Code. Notably, although the bankruptcy court (in dicta) had sharply criticized the use of a so-called "savings clause" in the transferring documents in respect of the New Term Loans, neither the district court nor the Circuit Court addressed the bankruptcy court's statements regarding the efficacy of such savings clauses.3

Recap of the Facts

TOUSA and numerous affiliates, homebuilders operating throughout the country, filed for bankruptcy protection on January 29, 2008 (the "Petition Date"). As of the Petition Date, TOUSA had substantial outstanding indebtedness, including approximately $500 million worth of New Term Loans. TOUSA had entered into the New Term Loans six months prior to the Petition Date in order to finance repayment of the Transeastern Lenders and to resolve litigation relating to a related failed joint venture. Unlike the debt owing to the Transeastern Lenders, which was unsecured, the New Term Loans were secured by liens on the assets of substantially all of TOUSA's subsidiaries.

On July 14, 2008, the Creditors' Committee commenced an adversary proceeding against the lenders that had advanced the New Term Loans as well as the Transeastern Lenders. The Committee asserted that the liens granted by the "Conveying Subsidiaries" were avoidable fraudulent transfers because, among other things, the New Term Loans rendered the Conveying Subsidiaries insolvent, and the Conveying Subsidiaries did not receive reasonably equivalent value in return for providing security for the New Term Loans.

The Lower Court Rulings

After a lengthy trial, the bankruptcy court issued an opinion avoiding the liens granted by the Conveying Subsidiaries as fraudulent transfers under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and finding that the Transeastern Lenders were direct transferees of those fraudulent transfers.4 The bankruptcy court held alternatively that the Transeastern Lenders were entities "for whose benefit" the Conveying Subsidiaries had granted liens on their assets, which rendered the Transeastern Lenders liable under Section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, the bankruptcy court ordered the Transeastern Lenders to disgorge approximately $433 million that they had received from the proceeds of the New Term Loans.

On appeal, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court's central holdings and, in an unusual procedural step, quashed, rather than remanded, the bankruptcy court's decision as it related to the Transeastern Lenders' liability.5 Although it noted that a bankruptcy court's findings of fact generally should not be overturned absent clear error, the district court criticized the bankruptcy court for adopting findings of fact almost directly from the proposed findings of the Committee, which the district court decided was cause for it to undertake essentially a de novo review of the facts and issues on appeal.

On the issue of whether the Conveying Subsidiaries received reasonably equivalent value, the court relied heavily on the fact that the repayment of the Transeastern Loans eliminated the imminent risk of default and a parent bankruptcy, which the court found to be "an enormous economic benefit to these subsidiaries in terms of their viability as going concerns and their continued access to financing through the TOUSA parent." Because the factual record from the bankruptcy court made clear that none of the solvency tests were at issue (whether the New Term Loans transaction left the Conveying Subsidiaries (i) insolvent, (ii) with unreasonably small capital, or (iii) unable to pay their debts as they came due), the district court considered only the reasonably equivalent value prong of the fraudulent transfer analysis. On the second issue—whether the Transeastern Lenders could be considered entities "for whose benefit" the liens were granted because they received some of the proceeds of the New Term Loans—the district court rejected the reasoning of the bankruptcy court, finding that its analysis of Section 550(a) would improperly broaden that section's scope.

The Circuit Court Decision


In its May 15 opinion, the Circuit Court held to the established standard of review for trial court findings. In particular, the panel noted that while determinations of law made by either court below would be reviewed de novo, the findings of fact of the bankruptcy court would be reviewed for clear error. In the words of the Circuit Court, this meant that such findings would not be disturbed "unless, in the light of all the evidence, 'we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.'"6 Notably, the Eleventh Circuit nowhere mentioned the district court's scathing critique of the bankruptcy court's wholesale adoption of the prevailing party's proposed factual findings, or its alternative standard of review.


The Reasonably Equivalent Value Issue

On the first issue on appeal, the Circuit Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that the Conveying Subsidiaries did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for granting liens to secure the New Term Loans.

As a threshold matter, the court noted that the issue of fair consideration was "largely a question of fact" and consequently, "considerable latitude must be allowed to the trier of the facts."7 In light of this deferential standard, the Circuit Court determined that it did not need to adopt either the narrow definition of "value" adopted by the bankruptcy court or the broader definition adopted by the district court (which considered indirect benefits to the subsidiary). Instead, even assuming that all of the purported benefits of the transaction were legally cognizable, the Circuit Court concluded that the bankruptcy court's finding of lack of reasonably equivalent value was not clear error.

In so ruling, the Circuit Court agreed with the bankruptcy court that, on the factual record before it, the incurrence of the new indebtedness at best delayed TOUSA's inevitable bankruptcy filing. This benefit, in the Circuit Court's view, cannot by itself constitute reasonably equivalent value: "The opportunity to avoid bankruptcy does not free a company to pay any price or bear any burden."8

The "For Whose Benefit" Issue

The Circuit Court also agreed with the bankruptcy court that, pursuant to Section 550(a), the Transeastern Lenders were entities "for whose benefit" the Conveying Subsidiaries granted their liens. Although the Circuit Court noted that benefit to a guarantor by the payment of the underlying debt of the debtor presents the "paradigm case" of a benefit under Section 550(a), the court noted that this was not the only circumstance where the statute applies. Building on its earlier decision in In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart,9 the Circuit Court continued to take an expansive view of Section 550(a), holding that when a debtor grants a lien to a lender, a creditor who receives proceeds of the loans may be subject to liability under Section 550(a), if the initial grant of the lien is later avoided.

In so ruling, the Circuit Court was fairly dismissive of the Transeastern Lenders' argument that the Circuit Court's reading of Section 550(a) "would drastically expand the potential pool of entities that could be liable for any transaction," calling it "unsubstantiated."10

The Circuit Court recognized that its ruling will require more diligence on the part of creditors who receive proceeds of loans made to a "struggling debtor."11 However, the court appeared to give short shrift to these concerns, on least on the facts before it, instead admonishing that "[i]t is far from a drastic obligation to expect some diligence from a creditor when it is being repaid hundreds of millions of dollars by someone other than its debtor."12


The Eleventh Circuit's decision in In re TOUSA, Inc., although framed narrowly on the factual findings of the bankruptcy court, nonetheless creates greater uncertainty for lenders and other creditors seeking repayment from distressed debtors. In the case of upstream guaranties, the decision leaves open the question of whether the avoidance or postponement of bankruptcy of the corporate family, or other indirect economic benefit to a subsidiary, can provide "value" within the meaning of Section 548. The appellate court's expansive reading of Section 550(a) also may increase the pool of potential defendants in avoidance actions, at least in the Eleventh Circuit, and may require creditors receiving payments pre-bankruptcy to engage in greater diligence as to the source of such payments. However, while the decision will be unwelcome to lenders who had celebrated the district court's energetic reversal of the TOUSA bankruptcy court decision, it nonetheless appears consistent with much of the existing constructive fraud case law in regard to the issue of whether reasonably equivalent value was received in exchange for certain transfers.


1 Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 11th Cir., 11- 11071.

2 See our Legal Update, "In re TOUSA—Florida District Court Reverses and Quashes Bankruptcy Court Fraudulent Transfer Decision," available at www.mayerbrown.com/publications/In-re-TOUSAFlorida-District-Court-Reverses-and-Quashes-Bankruptcy-Court-Fraudulent-Transfer-Decision-02-14-2011.

3 None of the parties to the appeal raised the savings clause issue in their briefs. We discussed the particulars of the bankruptcy court's original analysis in our Legal Update, "Viability of Guaranty 'Savings Clauses' Questioned by Florida Bankruptcy Court Decision," available at http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/ /Viability-of- Guaranty-Savings-Clauses-Questioned-by-Florida- Bankruptcy-Court-Decision-12-02-2009/ .

4 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc. v. Citicorp North America, Inc., (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 422 B.R. 783 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009).

5 3V Capital Master Fund Ltd. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc., 444 B.R. 613 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

6 Circuit Court opinion, p. 26.

7 Circuit Court opinion, p. 29.

8 Circuit Court opinion, p. 33.

9 American Bank of Marin County v. Leasing Service Corp. (In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart), 845 F.2d 293 (11th Cir. 1988).

10 Circuit Court opinion, p. 38.

11 Circuit Court opinion, p. 39.

12 Id.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions