Articles Tagged with “indiana”

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

Continental Casualty Company v. Symons, et al.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals Citation: 14-2665, 14-2671 & 15-106

Decided: March 22, 2016

This fraudulent transfer case pits 2 insurance company’s – as well as the controlling family of the seller and their related businesses – against one another. despite some fancy footwork on the part of the sellers, the Court saw through the ruse to the heart of the deceit. The upshot: if it quacks like a duck then it probably is. To nobody’s surprise, fraudulent transfers were found and liability followed close behind.

Factual Background

IGF Insurance Company owed Continental Casualty Company more than $25 million for a crop-insurance business it bought in 1998. In 2002 IGF resold the business to Acceptance Insurance Company for approximately $40 million. Continental alleged in the District Court that IGF’s controlling family — Gordon, Alan, and Doug Symons — structured the sale so that most of the purchase price was siphoned into the coffers of other Symons-controlled companies rendering IGF insolvent. Specifically, Continental claimed that $24 million of the $40 million purchase price went to 3 Symons-controlled companies—Goran Capital, Inc.; Symons International Group, Inc.; and Granite Reinsurance Co.—for sham noncompetition agreements and a superfluous and over-priced reinsurance treaty. Continental, still unpaid, sued for breach of contract and fraudulent transfer.

In 1998 IGF bought Continental’s crop-insurance business at a price to be determined at either side’s option by the exercise of a put or call option. In 2001 Continental exercised its put option; under the contractual formula, IGF owed Continental $25.4 million. At that same time, IGF sold its business to Acceptance for $40 million. The Symons, who controlled IGF, structured the purchase price: $16.5 million to IGF; $9 million to IGF’s parent companies Symons International and Goran in exchange for noncompetition agreements; and $15 million to Granite, an affiliated Symons-controlled company, for a reinsurance treaty. Continental, still unpaid, sued for breach of contract and fraudulent transfer.

Continue reading

Published on:

7th Circuit Court SealIN Petroleum Mkters & Convenience Store Ass’n v. Cook

No. 14-2559 (7th Cir. 2015)

Appeal from District Court for Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
No. 1:13-cv-00784-RLY-DML — Richard L. Young, Chief Judge

Argued Jan.07, 2015  Decided Dec.14, 2015

This case raises the issue of equal protection under the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. An association of convenience stores filed suit against the State of Indiana in the Federal District Court seeking to invalidate a state law restricting the sale of cold packaged beer. Their suit contended that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because certain stores were permitted to sell cold beer while grocery and convenience stores were not. District Court upheld the law and entered judgment for the State of Indiana, and the 7th Circuit affirmed.

A threshold question before the Court was the extent to which the 21st Amendment affected this case. Indiana argued that it had “nearly absolute” authority to regulate alcohol sales under that Amendment and that no further analysis was necessary. While the 7th Circuit disagreed with that analysis, it found that the District Court was right to uphold the law because Indiana’s cold-beer statute was only subject to “rational-basis” review and survived analysis under that standard

Factual Background

The Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, which serves gas stations and convenience stores, along with 3 members and a consumer, filed suit in Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of SS.7.1-5-10-11 of the Indiana Code, which prohibits holders of a beer-dealer permit from selling cold packaged beer, contending that the statute reduces beer sales. The complaint named the chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; the Commission itself; and the State of Indiana. The Commission and State were dropped from the suit, so the chair of the Commission was the sole remaining defendant.
Continue reading

Published on:

Justia.com Opinion Summary

Defendant owned companies forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but was not a debtor in the proceedings. The plan was confirmed and prohibited suits against the bankruptcy professionals and certain litigation against pre-bankruptcy creditors. Years later defendant sued plaintiff, pre-judgment creditors, and the bankruptcy professionals in an Indiana state court, based on Indiana law. The creditors removed the suit to bankruptcy court (28 U.S.C. 1452(a)) rather than asking the bankruptcy judge to enforce his order. The statute authorizes removal of any claim of which that court would have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1334, which confers on the district courts original jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code, or “arising in or related to cases under” the Code. The bankruptcy judge determined that the suit against the bankruptcy professionals was barred. Defendant filed an amended complaint eliminating all defendants except plaintiff and stating that the only claims arose from alleged violations of confidentiality agreements. The bankruptcy judge ruled that, as amended, the complaint was unrelated to the bankruptcy and ordered the suit remanded to the state court. The district judge affirmed. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the dismissal was not subject to review.

Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email