Astropower liquidating trust
Arnold, as president and CEO, signed these promissory notes every year between 2002-2007. §§ 55-906, 913(1)(a) & (b), and 55-914(1); (ii) that Arnold breached his personal guaranty of the 20 promissory notes; (iii) that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties; (iv) that the transfers unjustly enriched Arnold and Jensen; and (v) that Arnold and Jensen breached the Wavetronix Operating Agreement. On December 30, 2008, Stellar notified Wavetronix that it was in default under the 20 promissory notes.Arnold also personally guaranteed the 20 notes up to his pro rata percentage ownership in Wavetronix. The Individual Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint as failing to adequately plead any of these causes of action. (Id., ¶¶ 445, 470.) That same day, Stellar demanded that Arnold satisfy his Guaranty obligations.
Shannon) On or about October 11, 2006, Charys Holding Company, Inc.
Wavetronix, an Idaho limited liability corporation, is one of the Technology Companies identified in the Complaint and is a defendant named in the Complaint. Even if the Complaint adequately states a claim against Wavetronix, it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against any other or subsequent transferee.
(Id., ¶ 57.) During the four years preceding the petition date, DBSI transferred no less than ,742,253.58 to Wavetronix LLC ("Wavetronix") through its affiliate DBSI Redemption Reserve ("DRR"), an Idaho general partnership. Because Trustees have failed to identify any transfers made to the Individual Defendants or for the benefit of the Individual Defendants, the Complaint fails to sufficiently plead fraudulent transfer actions against the Individual Defendants.
Mc Mahan responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that that: (1) the Engagement Letter contained a forum selection clause requiring the action to be commenced and litigated in Connecticut state court; (2) Charys failed to plead sufficient facts to establish its claims; and (3) Charys’s admission that the Transfers were made on account of an antecedent debt proved that the Transfers were in exchange for reasonably equivalent value.
The Trusts filed a response and an amended complaint. 2005), in which the court refused to enforce a forum selection clause because, most significantly, the fraudulent transfer claims did not arise from the relevant contract, but rather arose by operation of statute.