Singh v. Singh (In re Singh)
| Decision Date | 14 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | BAP No. CC-17-1353-FLS,Adv. Pro. 6:15-ap-1008-SC |
| Parties | In re: PRADEEP SINGH and RINDI P. SINGH, Debtors. PRADEEP SINGH, Appellant, v. RINDI P. SINGH; UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Appellees. |
| Court | Bankruptcy Appellate Panels. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM*Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
Appearances: Appellant Pradeep Singh, pro se, on brief; Ramona D. Elliott, P. Matthew Sutko, Robert J. Schneider, Jr., Peter C. Anderson, Russell Clementson, and Everett L. Green on brief for appellee United States Trustee for Region 16.
Before: FARIS, LAFFERTY, and SPRAKER, Bankruptcy Judges.
Chapter 71 debtor Pradeep Singh appeals from the bankruptcy court's denial of his discharge under §§ 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4). Mr. Singh argues that the bankruptcy court erred when it determined that his corporation's transactions were attributable to him personally and that he was operating a Ponzi scheme. He contends that he did not hide any transaction or make false oaths. He also claims that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in making various pretrial and evidentiary rulings against him.
We discern no error and AFFIRM.
PradeepSingh Corporation, dba Secure Vision Associates ("SVA") sold insurance, annuities, and various insurance-based products. Mr. Singh was SVA's president, chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and majority shareholder. Mr. Singh's wife, co-debtor Rindi Singh, was SVA's secretary. The Singhs and their son were the sole shareholders of SVA.
Beginning in 2001, SVA stopped complying with many corporate formalities. SVA did not hold required shareholder meetings or board of directors meetings and did not prepare corporate meeting minutes.
Mr. Singh held a license to sell life and health insurance in California but was not licensed to sell securities. Nevertheless, between 2002 and 2014, he persuaded dozens of his customers and other individuals to give him money through SVA. He directed them to make the checks payable to SVA. Those individuals received promissory notes that promised repayment plus interest at above-market rates.3
SVA conducted most of its business with American EquityInvestment Life Insurance Company ("American Equity"). In 2013, American Equity began receiving complaints from consumers that Mr. Singh and SVA had solicited money from them. Even after American Equity cautioned Mr. Singh that his actions violated company policy, Mr. Singh continued to solicit funds from individuals.
American Equity terminated its contract with SVA in June 2014. A second insurance company also terminated its contract with SVA due to similar complaints. Mr. Singh lost all of his commission-based income and could no longer repay any of the individuals who had given him money.
Mr. Singh dissolved the PradeepSingh Corporation in July 2014.
On August 4, 2014, the Singhs filed their joint chapter 7 petition. They did not disclose loans that they allegedly made to SVA or prepetition payments received from SVA.
Six of the individuals who had given money to SVA at Mr. Singh's request initiated adversary proceedings against the Singhs seeking denial of discharge of their debts under § 523. In response to a complaint filed by creditor Carol Taylor, Mr. Singh asserted as an affirmative defense his right to recover funds from Ms. Taylor pursuant to the doctrine of usury and a right to offset.
Appellee United States Trustee for Region 16 ("U.S. Trustee") filed anadversary proceeding seeking to deny the Singhs discharge under §§ 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(5). He alleged that SVA was the alter ego of the Singhs, who used SVA to shield themselves against personal liability and further their fraudulent scheme. He claimed that Mr. Singh solicited investments from individuals as a part of a Ponzi scheme and funneled the funds through SVA, while both the Singhs and SVA were insolvent. In order to pay the earlier investors and keep his scheme going, he solicited funds from new investors. The U.S. Trustee alleged that Mr. Singh repaid investors $400,000 (including $31,000 to himself) in the year preceding the petition date.
The U.S. Trustee represented that the Singhs had failed to disclose prepetition payments from SVA to Mr. Singh. The U.S. Trustee also alleged that he discovered undisclosed bank accounts.
Accordingly, the U.S. Trustee asserted a § 727(a)(2)(A) claim based on the Singhs' transfer of money to and from SVA (their alter ego) for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding creditors. The U.S. Trustee also brought a § 727(a)(4) claim because the Singhs made false oaths by failing to disclose loans that they had made to SVA and prepetition payments that they received from SVA. Finally, he asserted a § 727(a)(5) claim because the Singhs failed to explain the loss of certain assets.
Mr. Singh denied the substance of the U.S. Trustee's allegations, disputing that he ever engaged in investment activity; rather, he assertedthat the money that he received from clients were loans memorialized by promissory notes. He also denied that he was involved in a Ponzi scheme.
In April 2016, Mr. Singh filed a motion for summary judgment, relying on purported admissions by the U.S. Trustee. The U.S. Trustee had served his responses to Mr. Singh's requests for admissions six days after an extended deadline.
The U.S. Trustee filed a motion to withdraw the deemed admissions. He stated that his counsel had requested a seven-day extension to respond, and Mr. Singh's counsel agreed. When the week had passed, the U.S. Trustee's counsel informed Mr. Singh's counsel that he needed another seven days to obtain his client's approval and said, "Please let me know if this presents a problem." Mr. Singh's counsel did not respond, and the U.S. Trustee served his responses six days later.
The U.S. Trustee argued that Mr. Singh was not prejudiced by the six-day delay because the court extended the discovery cut-off date and expert cut-off date. Additionally, Mr. Singh had received the responses over six months prior to the close of fact discovery.
The U.S. Trustee also argued that many of the requests for admissions were improper, as they requested legal admissions and were not intended to aid in discovery. As such, withdrawing the admissionswould allow for the presentation of the case on the merits.
In opposition, Mr. Singh argued that the U.S. Trustee's failure earlier to withdraw the admissions made him feel "secure and confident in relying upon them for his defense; therefore he [did] not engage in compelling additional discovery, including expert depositions."
The bankruptcy court granted the U.S. Trustee's motion to withdraw the admissions, holding that "reliance on a deemed admission in preparing a summary judgment motion does not constitute prejudice in this instance." The court allowed the U.S. Trustee to serve revised responses by May 31, 2016. It reopened discovery "to permit non-redundant discovery to be conducted by Singh, solely with respect to any received Answers to Admissions, through and including August 13, 2016." It denied without prejudice the motion for summary judgment.
Mr. Singh filed another motion for summary judgment, arguing that the U.S. Trustee had no standing to assert alter ego and that this necessarily defeated all of his claims. Additionally, he argued that the U.S. Trustee failed to establish factual bases for his claims.
The bankruptcy court denied Mr. Singh's motion for summary judgment without a hearing, holding that the U.S. Trustee was not precluded from asserting alter ego and that there were triable factual issues relating to the §§ 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(5) claims.
On March 8, 2017, the parties filed a joint amended pretrial stipulation. The U.S. Trustee did not give notice that he intended to rely on the omission of Mr. Singh's usury defense against Ms. Taylor as a false oath. The bankruptcy court approved the pretrial stipulation.
Mr. Singh filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert report and testimony of the U.S. Trustee's expert accountant, Hakop Jack Arutyunyan. He argued that Mr. Arutyunyan's expert report was inaccurate and unreliable because it did not include supporting data or exhibits and the expert had only consulted limited materials. Additionally, he questioned Mr. Arutyunyan's qualification as an expert because he was employed by the U.S. Trustee and had not previously testified as an expert.
The bankruptcy court denied the motion in limine.
The bankruptcy court conducted a five-day trial on the U.S. Trustee's § 727 complaint. The Singhs testified, as well as three of the alleged victims, the chapter 7 trustee, the U.S. Trustee's bankruptcy auditor, and the parties' expert witnesses. The investors testified that Mr. Singh convinced them to give him substantial sums of money for investment in the stock market or other ventures and that he guaranteed them a high rate of return. Although they received promissory notes, he led them to believe that hewas investing their money.
The U.S. Trustee's expert, Mr. Arutyunyan, testified as to two primary conclusions: that SVA was insolvent and that Mr. Singh was operating a Ponzi scheme. He testified that he was not able to account for approximately $117,000 that went into SVA's bank account.
Mr. Singh maintained that he did not engage in a Ponzi scheme or make a false oath. Mr. Singh's sister testified that she had reconciled the bank and credit card accounts and accounted for all of the loan proceeds. Mr. Singh's expert witness, Peter...
To continue reading
Request your trial