Hillebrand v. Sav-Co, Civ. No. 72-75.
Decision Date | 20 October 1972 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 72-75. |
Citation | 353 F. Supp. 19 |
Parties | Robert J. HILLEBRAND, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Automotive Warehouses, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAV-CO, an Illinois corporation, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
Joel A. Kunin, Cohn, Carr, Korein, Kunin, & Brennan, East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff.
Sam S. Pessin, Belleville, Ill., for defendants.
By this action Plaintiff, the Bankruptcy Trustee of Automotive Warehouses, Inc. ("Bankrupt"), seeks to set aside and recover from the Defendants certain alleged voidable transfers, under § 60 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 96. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for its failure to state a cause of action.
On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, all facts well-pleaded in the complaint are taken as true. Thus the Court's inquiry is limited to the determination whether the Plaintiff has presented facts which would entitle him to establish and recover a voidable transfer.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that payments for antecedent debts were made by the Bankrupt to each of the four Defendants. However, it appears elsewhere in the complaint that these payments were actually made not by the Bankrupt corporation itself, but from four wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Bankrupt, organized as separate corporate entities under the laws of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that these subsidiaries were each merely an alter ego of the Bankrupt, that the subsidiaries were thinly capitalized, had no assets, no separate financial records and books, identical directors and officers; and that the day-to-day operation of the subsidiaries was directed by the parent corporation. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants knew, or had reason to know, of this relationship between the subsidiaries and the Bankrupt.
Plaintiff further alleges that the transfers were made within four months of the filing of the involuntary petition for Bankruptcy, while the Bankrupt was insolvent; that at the time of the transfer the creditors had reasonable cause to believe that the Bankrupt was insolvent, and that the effect of these transfers was to give such creditors a greater percentage of their debts than would another creditor of the same class. These latter allegations are necessary to establish a voidable transfer under § 60 of the Bankruptcy Act.
In their motion Defendants claim that since the subsidiaries were legal entities separate from the Bankrupt, the payments were not in fact transfers "of any of the property of" the Bankrupt, and thus cannot be voidable transfers under § 60.
Thus the issue to be decided is whether the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" may be applied to the subsidiary transferors, so as to attribute such transfers to the Bankrupt itself, where the transferees have actual or constructive knowledge of the true relationship between the corporations. Clearly, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the transfers were made out of the assets of the Bankrupt's estate. Remington on Bankruptcy; Vol. 4, § 1661.5.
It is well-established that the corporate status of a subsidiary can be disregarded in bankruptcy proceedings if the subsidiary is found to be a mere "alter ego" of the Bankrupt parent corporation. The trustee of a bankrupt company has been permitted to take over the assets of corporate subsidiaries upon a finding that the subsidiaries were organized to perpetrate fraud on creditors, In re Clark Supply Co., 172 F.2d 248 (7th Cir., 1949); Hudson v. Wylie, 242 F.2d 435 (9th Cir., 1957); or that the subsidiaries amounted to mere agents or instrumentalities of the bankrupt parent, In re Plymouth Dyeing Co., 323 F.2d 134 (3d Cir., 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Bellanca Aircraft Corp.
...in bankruptcy proceedings if the subsidiary is found to be a mere alter ego of the parent corporation. See Hillebrand v. Sav-Co, 353 F.Supp. 19, 21 (E.D.Ill.1972). In contrast to Hillebrand and the cases cited therein, though, AGCO here effectively seeks for its own benefit to pierce its ow......
-
Stop H-3 Association v. Volpe
... ... S. Department of Transportation, et al., Defendants ... Civ. No. 72-3606 ... United States District Court, D. Hawaii ... December ... ...
-
Stodd v. Goldberger
...cites Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., CA 5, 274 F.2d 320; Fitzgerald v. Central Bank & Trust Co., CA 10, 257 F.2d 118; Hillebrand v. Sav-Co, D.C.Ill., 353 F.Supp. 19; Long v. McGlon, D.C.S.C., 263 F.Supp. 96; Henderson v. Rounds & Porter Lumber Co., D.C.Ark., 99 F.Supp. 376; and Buckman v......
-
Continental Vending Mach. Corp., In re
... ... denied, 317 U.S. 635, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 512 (1942); Hillebrand v. Sav-Co, 353 F.Supp. 19, 21 ... Page 1001 ... (E.D.Ill.1972) ... ...