Vijay Taneja v. First Tennessee Bank NA
Filing
PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01097-AJT-TRJ,08-13293-RGM,10-01225-RGM. [999301180]. [13-1058]
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 1 of 37
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1058
In Re:
VIJAY K. TANEJA,
Debtor.
----------------------H. JASON GOLD, Chapter 11 Liquidating Trustee,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FIRST TENNESSEE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01097-AJT-TRJ; 08-13293-RGM; 10-01225RGM)
Argued:
October 29, 2013
Decided:
February 21, 2014
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Thacker concurred.
Judge Wynn wrote a separate
dissenting opinion.
ARGUED: Kenneth Oestreicher, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Clarence A. Wilbon, BASS,
BERRY & SIMS PLC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 2 of 37
Todd M. Brooks, Baltimore, Maryland, Christopher A. Jones,
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Appellant. Annie T. Christoff, BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC, Memphis,
Tennessee; Sheila DeLa Cruz, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
2
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 3 of 37
BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:
In this bankruptcy case, the trustee for the bankruptcy
estates of Vijay K. Taneja and Financial Mortgage, Inc. (FMI)
filed an action to avoid and recover certain payments made by
FMI to First Tennessee Bank, National Association (the bank, or
First Tennessee).
In the complaint, the trustee alleged that
the payments were “fraudulent transfers” under 11 U.S.C. § 548,
and were part of a fraudulent scheme carried out by FMI and
Taneja.
After a trial, the bankruptcy court determined that the
bank proved the affirmative defense of good faith in accordance
with Section 548(c) and dismissed the trustee’s action.
The
district court affirmed that decision, and the trustee appeals.
The primary question presented is whether the bank proved
its
good-faith
employees.
defense
based
on
the
testimony
of
two
bank
Upon our review, we conclude that the bankruptcy
court and the district court correctly applied the objective
good-faith
standard
in
determining
that
the
bank
employees’
testimony provided competent objective evidence that satisfied
the
bank’s
burden
of
proving
its
affirmative
defense
under
Section 548(c).
We further conclude that the bankruptcy court
did
err
not
clearly
in
holding
payments from FMI in good faith.
district court’s judgment.
3
that
the
bank
accepted
the
Accordingly, we affirm the
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 4 of 37
I.
In the 1990’s, Taneja began operating FMI, a legitimate
business engaged in originating home mortgages and selling those
loans to investors (secondary purchasers), who aggregated the
mortgage loans and often securitized them for sale to different
investors.
To carry out its business, FMI worked with numerous
financial institutions known as “warehouse lenders.”
Typically,
these lenders extended lines of credit and advanced funds to
FMI, in order that FMI could extend mortgage loans to individual
mortgagees.
The
warehouse
lenders
required
FMI
to
sell
the
mortgage loans to secondary purchasers within a certain time
period.
After the sale, the warehouse lenders’ lines of credit
were “replenished according to the terms of the agreement.”
The record shows that at some point after 1999, FMI and
Taneja had difficulty selling their mortgage loans to secondary
purchasers.
As
a
fraudulent
result,
conduct,
which
FMI
and
included
Taneja
selling
began
the
engaging
same
in
mortgage
loans to several different secondary purchasers and conspiring
with other business entities controlled by Taneja to have them
serve
as
fraudulent
intermediary
conduct
parties
continued
to
during
conceal
2007
the
and
fraud.
2008,
The
when
the
market for “mortgage-backed securities” declined significantly.
Even though FMI and Taneja also continued to conduct certain
legitimate
business
activities,
4
their
fraudulent
conduct
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 5 of 37
resulted in losses of nearly $14 million to warehouse lenders,
and of about $19 million to secondary purchasers. 1
FMI’s
lender,
relationship
began
in
with
when
2007
First
the
Tennessee,
bank
a
received
concerning FMI from another warehouse lender.
warehouse
a
referral
Before extending
FMI a line of credit, the bank analyzed financial statements and
tax
returns
conducted
submitted
research
by
using
FMI
“a
and
Taneja.
private
The
mortgage
bank
also
database”
that
contained various information regarding mortgage irregularities,
reports
of
fraud,
and
material
suspicions
of
fraud.
Additionally, the bank contacted FMI’s references and examined
FMI’s “quality control plan.”
reveal
any
negative
The bank’s investigation did not
business
information
involving
FMI
or
Taneja.
On July 2, 2007, the bank and FMI executed an agreement in
which the bank provided FMI with a line of credit in the amount
of $15 million (the lending agreement).
However, their lending
relationship
bank
was
short-lived,
and
the
ultimately
made
advances to FMI for a period of only about four months, between
August and early November 2007.
1
These figures represent the losses that Taneja admitted in
connection with his individual criminal conviction arising from
these activities.
5
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
The
Filed: 02/21/2014
lending
agreement
Pg: 6 of 37
obligated
the
directly to an insured title agent.
bank
to
send
funds
After each mortgage loan
closed, FMI was required to send certain documents to the bank
within two business days, including the mortgagor’s promissory
notes associated with the loans originated by FMI.
Although FMI
periodically did not meet this two-day timeline, FMI eventually
provided to the bank the original promissory note for each loan,
which was the most critical security document underlying each
transaction.
In September 2007, FMI submitted three repayments to the
bank, totaling about $1 million.
However, by mid-October 2007,
FMI owed about $12 million of funds advanced on its line of
credit with the bank.
Thereafter, the bank suspended payment of
any additional advances to FMI.
On
executive
November
vice
1,
2007,
president
of
Robert
A.
mortgage
Garrett,
warehouse
the
bank’s
lending,
and
Benjamin Gaither Daugherty, III, the bank’s vice president and
relationship manager of the bank’s warehouse lending group, met
with Taneja at FMI’s place of business.
Garrett and Daugherty
explained to Taneja that FMI needed to sell its mortgage loans
to secondary purchasers and “clear” the line of credit.
In
response, Taneja informed the bank’s representatives that FMI’s
failure to produce timely, adequate documentation to complete
mortgage loans sales to secondary purchasers was caused by the
6
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 7 of 37
unexpected departure of one of FMI’s loan processors.
absence
of
such
mortgage
loan
would
not
purchase
especially
during
the
documentation,
difficult
this
meeting,
a
the
purchaser
After
In the
obligations,
mortgage
market
Garrett
secondary
conditions
2007.
investigated
further
in
FMI’s
“dragging” mortgage loan sales by contacting a representative of
Wells Fargo, FMI’s chief customer and secondary purchaser, to
inquire
about
outstanding
FMI’s
unsold
with
the
Garrett
informed
loan
that
loans.
Wells
Wells
Garrett
Fargo
Fargo
had
reviewed
each
representative,
not
purchased
who
FMI’s
outstanding loans because the supporting documentation had not
been provided.
In
November
and
December
2007,
FMI
made
six
principal
payments and one interest payment to the bank, in the total
amount of about $2.8 million.
In January 2008, Garrett and
Daugherty met again with Taneja at FMI’s office to address the
outstanding balance of advanced funds.
According to Garrett, he
and
files
Daugherty
planned
to
obtain
the
from
FMI
for
its
unsold mortgage loans to sell the loans directly to secondary
purchasers.
a
However, Taneja proposed that the parties engage in
“collateral
estate
to
“pay
swap,”
the
in
which
bank
off.”
Taneja
would
Taneja
sell
other
represented
that
real
the
mortgage loans had lost value, and that Taneja did not want to
sell them until their value increased.
7
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 8 of 37
During the January 2008 meeting, Taneja’s attorney informed
Garrett,
asked
“You
Taneja’s
whether
there
don’t
want
attorney
was
these
loans.”
whether
“any
FMI’s
fraud
Garrett
loans
involved
were
in
immediately
valid,
these
and
loans.”
Taneja’s attorney assured Garrett that there was “no problem,”
and that the mortgage loans were “good” and represented “armslength transactions.”
After this meeting, Garrett and Daugherty visited numerous
properties that served as security for FMI’s mortgage loans.
They also reviewed appraisals for some of the properties, and
confirmed that FMI was listed as the mortgagor on the deeds of
trust
placed
materials,
on
those
Garrett
and
properties.
Daugherty
After
again
reviewing
met
with
these
Taneja’s
attorney and reiterated the importance of confirming that the
mortgage loans were “real.”
“there
is
forbearance
not
a
problem.”
agreement
with
Taneja’s attorney represented that
The
FMI,
bank
in
ultimately
which
Taneja
approved
agreed
a
to
provide additional collateral to secure the bank’s interests.
In February and March 2008, FMI transferred to the bank two
interest payments, in the total amount of about $76,000, which
were the final payments at issue in this appeal.
In April 2008,
the bank learned that the deeds of trust securing the mortgage
notes held by the bank were not valid and had been falsified.
8
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 9 of 37
The bank immediately declared FMI in default under the lending
agreement.
As a result of the bank’s relationship with FMI and Taneja,
the bank lost more than $5.6 million.
Taneja’s conduct later
resulted in his conviction for conspiracy to engage in money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
sentence
of
84
months’
imprisonment
and
was
restitution in the amount of $33,162,291.
He received a
ordered
to
pay
See Gold v. Gateway
Bank, FSB, No. 1:12-cv-264, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109337 (E.D.
Va. July 3, 2012).
In
June
including
2008,
FMI,
Taneja
filed
and
voluntary
his
corporate
petitions
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
for
affiliates,
relief
under
H. Jason Gold, who was
appointed as the trustee for the debtors (the trustee), filed an
adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court against the bank in
accordance
with
11
U.S.C.
§§
548(a)
and
550(a).
In
the
complaint, the trustee sought to avoid and recover the funds
that
FMI
transmitted
to
the
bank
in
the
twelve
payments
described above, which totaled nearly $4 million, on the ground
that the funds were conveyed fraudulently.
In
response,
the
bank
contended
that
it
payments from FMI for value and in good faith.
with
11
U.S.C.
§ 548(c),
the
bank
9
pleaded
good
received
the
In accordance
faith
as
an
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
affirmative
Filed: 02/21/2014
defense.
The
Pg: 10 of 37
case
proceeded
to
trial
in
the
bankruptcy court.
During
testimony
a
three-day
and
trial,
received
the
bankruptcy
substantial
regarding
the
fraudulent
conduct
asserting
its
good-faith
defense,
documentary
of
FMI
the
testimony of Garrett and Daugherty.
court
and
bank
heard
evidence
Taneja.
relied
on
In
the
Although the bank did not
seek to qualify these witnesses as experts, both Garrett and
Daugherty
their
were
permitted
knowledge
primarily
on
of
their
the
long
without
objection
warehouse
careers
to
lending
with
the
testify
industry
bank
about
based
and
other
institutions.
Garrett, who had worked for the bank for 14 years, and had
worked in the banking business for about 30 years, testified
about his experience initiating “warehouse lending groups” at
the bank and at two other financial institutions.
Garrett also
testified about his work developing software used by the bank
and
other
lending
institutions
to
manage
and
operate
their
warehouse lending businesses.
With
regard
to
the
warehouse
lending
industry,
Garrett
stated that as part of his responsibilities at the bank, he
monitors industry publications and often serves as a speaker at
industry conferences.
Garrett stated that, in 2007 and 2008,
the secondary mortgage market was “imploding.”
10
He explained
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 11 of 37
that at the end of July 2007, “the secondary market for nonagency mortgage-backed securities came back no bid,” which meant
that “if you owned a mortgage-backed security you didn’t have a
market on which to sell it.”
Garrett further explained that
during
purchasers
this
their
period,
underwriting
narrowed
criteria
secondary
criteria.”
created
mortgage bankers to meet.
“market
meltdown,”
According
more
began
to
“constricting
Garrett,
restrictive
these
standards
for
Garrett testified that during the
successful
sales
of
loans
to
secondary
purchasers depended on the effective “build[ing] [of] a loan
file,” and on finding parties to purchase the mortgage loans.
Daugherty began working for the bank in 1988.
relevant
primary
period
contact
in
2007
with
and
FMI.
2008,
he
Daugherty
served
During the
as
testified
the
that
bank’s
he
was
familiar with the general practices of the warehouse lending
industry, and with the particular market turmoil of 2007 and
2008.
Daugherty stated that, during this period, it was common
for a secondary purchaser to spend additional time determining
whether to buy various mortgage loans, and that this additional
review process increased the time required to complete a sale of
those
instruments.
meltdown,”
warehouse
more
lines
He
loans
of
also
stated
remained
credit
than
previous years.
11
that
during
outstanding
ever
had
on
been
the
“market
the
bank’s
the
case
in
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 12 of 37
After trial, the bankruptcy court issued a comprehensive
memorandum opinion, concluding that even if the trustee could
establish that the payments at issue were fraudulent, the bank
had shown that it accepted the payments in good faith. 2
The
bankruptcy court determined that although the bank was concerned
about FMI’s failure to sell its loans quickly in late 2007, the
bank
reasonably
thought
that
the
lagging
secondary
mortgage
market, rather than any inappropriate conduct by FMI and Taneja,
was the cause of the delayed sales.
The bankruptcy court also addressed many other details of
the relationship between the bank and FMI, and concluded that
the bank “did not have any information that would [reasonably]
have led it to investigate further, and the bank’s actions were
in accord with the bank’s and the industry’s usual practices.”
With regard to the bank’s witnesses, Garrett and Daugherty, the
bankruptcy court stated that they were
knowledgeable in the bank’s practices, the bank’s
relationship with FMI, the transactions in issue and
the mortgage warehouse industry.
[Garrett’s and
Daugherty’s] testimony was credible that at the time
of each transfer, the bank did not have any actual
knowledge of the fraud Taneja was perpetrating on it
and others, did not have any information that would
[reasonably] have led it to investigate further, and
2
The bankruptcy court also determined that the trustee was
not entitled to a “Ponzi scheme presumption,” which would have
relieved the trustee of the burden of proving that each
transaction was made with the intention to hinder, delay, or
defraud creditors.
12
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 13 of 37
the bank’s actions were in accord with the bank’s and
the industry’s usual practices.
In reaching this conclusion, the bankruptcy court acknowledged
that Garrett and Daugherty were the employees responsible for
the
bank’s
warehouse
lending
and
transactions
with
FMI,
but
stated that the court had considered these factors in assessing
whether their employment and job conduct may have affected their
credibility.
The court concluded that the testimony of Garrett
and Daugherty sufficiently established the required components
of the bank’s good-faith defense.
Having concluded that the bank established its good-faith
affirmative defense under Section 548(c), the bankruptcy court
dismissed the trustee’s adversary action.
The district court
affirmed that decision, and the trustee filed a timely appeal in
this Court.
II.
We review de novo the legal conclusions of the bankruptcy
court and the district court.
(4th Cir. 2013).
In re Alvarez, 733 F.3d 136, 140
Like the district court, we review for clear
error the factual findings of the bankruptcy court.
Id.
A bankruptcy court’s decision that a defendant has met its
burden of proving a good-faith defense is primarily a factual
determination, which is subject to review for clear error.
13
See
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 14 of 37
In re Armstrong, 285 F.3d 1092, 1096 (8th Cir. 2002).
Under
this standard, we will not reverse a bankruptcy court’s factual
finding that is supported by the evidence unless that finding is
clearly wrong.
In re ESA Envtl. Specialists, Inc., 709 F.3d
388, 399 (4th Cir. 2013).
We will conclude that a finding is
clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the record, we are
left with “a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has
been committed.”
Klein v. PepsiCo, Inc., 845 F.2d 76, 79 (4th
Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
On appeal, the trustee challenges the bankruptcy court’s
determination that the bank established its good-faith defense
under
Section
arguments:
(1)
548(c).
that
The
the
trustee
court
erred
asserts
as
a
two
matter
related
of
law
by
misapplying the objective good-faith standard; and (2) that the
court
clearly
sufficient
erred
objective
in
concluding
evidence
to
relevant payments in good faith.
that
prove
the
that
bank
it
presented
accepted
the
We address these arguments in
turn.
Under
Section 548(a),
transfer
of
transfer
.
creditors.
a
.
debtor’s
.
with
a
bankruptcy
property
intent
to
if
provides that:
14
the
hinder,
11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A).
trustee
debtor
delay,
can
avoid
“made
or
a
such
defraud”
However, Section 548(c)
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 15 of 37
a transferee . . . of such a transfer . . . that takes
for value and in good faith . . . may retain any
interest transferred . . . to the extent that such
transferee or obligee gave value to the debtor in
exchange for such transfer or obligation.
This provision provides a transferee with an affirmative defense
to the trustee’s avoidance action if the transferee meets its
burden to show that it accepted the transfers “for value and in
good faith.”
11 U.S.C. § 548(c); see Perkins v. Haines, 661
F.3d 623, 626 (11th Cir. 2011).
Because the “for value” element
is not at issue in the present case, we focus only on the issue
whether
the
bank
satisfied
its
burden
of
proving
that
it
accepted the transfers in good faith.
Although the Bankruptcy Code does not define the term “good
faith,” this Court recently interpreted the term in the context
of an affirmative defense asserted under 11 U.S.C. § 550(b)(1).
See Goldman v. City Capital Mortg. Corp. (In re Nieves), 648
F.3d 232, 237 (4th Cir. 2011).
faith-defense
recovering
permitting
funds
a
involving
That section provides a good
transferee
transfers
to
bar
that
a
have
trustee
been
from
deemed
avoidable under Section 548 or certain other provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code.
648 F.3d at 237.
11 U.S.C. § 550(a), (b)(1); see In re Nieves,
In material part, Section 550(b)(1) states
that an affirmative defense is established when a transferee of
avoidable property takes the transfer “for value . . . in good
15
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 16 of 37
faith, and without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer
avoided.”
In our decision in In re Nieves, we determined that the
proper
focus
bankruptcy
in
evaluating
avoidance
good
action
faith
requires
in
the
that
a
context
court
of
a
determine
“what the transferee [actually] knew or should have known” when
it accepted the transfers.
Id. at 238 (citation omitted).
We
observed that general principles of good faith in other areas of
commercial
law
aided
our
refinement
of
this
term
in
the
bankruptcy context, and we concluded that “good faith” has both
“[1]
subjective
(‘honesty
in
fact’)
and
[2]
objective
(‘observance of reasonable commercial standards’) components.”
Id.
at
239.
We
articulated
the
standard
for
a
good-faith
defense in that bankruptcy proceeding as follows:
Under the subjective prong, a court looks to “the
honesty” and “state of mind” of the party acquiring
the property. Under the objective prong, a party acts
without good faith by failing to abide by routine
business practices.
We therefore arrive at the
conclusion that the objective good-faith standard
probes what the transferee knew or should have known
taking into consideration the customary practices of
the industry in which the transferee operates.
Id. at 239-40 (citations omitted).
We conclude that the good-faith standard adopted in In re
Nieves
is
applicable
to
the
defense under Section 548(c).
a
transferee
has
establishment
of
a
good-faith
Therefore, in evaluating whether
established
an
16
affirmative
defense
under
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Section 548(c),
a
court
is
Pg: 17 of 37
required
to
consider
whether
the
transferee actually was aware or should have been aware, at the
time of the transfers and in accordance with routine business
practices,
that
the
transferor-debtor
intended
to
“hinder,
delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became .
. . indebted.”
See id. at 238; 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A).
In the present case, the trustee does not assert that the
bank actually knew about FMI’s and Taneja’s fraudulent conduct
before April 2008.
Thus, we confine our consideration to the
issue whether the bank should have known about the fraudulent
conduct
of
customary
FMI
and
practices
operates.”
Taneja,
of
the
“taking
into
industry
in
consideration
which
the
the
[bank]
See In re Nieves, 648 F.3d at 240.
Both the bankruptcy court and the district court in the
present case applied the good-faith standard from In re Nieves
in conducting their analyses.
The trustee contends, however,
that those courts erred in applying that standard, and asserts
that the bank, as a matter of law, was unable to prove good
faith without showing that “each and every act taken and belief
held” by the bank constituted “reasonably prudent conduct by a
mortgage warehouse lender.”
Additionally, the trustee asserts
that such evidence “likely” should have been presented in the
form
of
third-party
expert
testimony.
trustee’s arguments.
17
We
disagree
with
the
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
While
the
Filed: 02/21/2014
trustee
Pg: 18 of 37
correctly
observes
that
the
objective
good-faith standard requires consideration of routine business
practices, the trustee’s position well exceeds the requirement
that a court consider “the customary practices of the industry
in which the transferee operates.”
See id.
We decline to adopt
a bright-line rule requiring that a party asserting a good-faith
defense present evidence that his every action concerning the
relevant
transfers
industry
standards.
was
objectively
Instead,
our
reasonable
inquiry
in
regarding
light
of
industry
standards serves to establish the correct context in which to
consider what the transferee knew or should have known. 3
In addition, we decline to hold that a defendant asserting
a good-faith defense must present third-party expert testimony
in order to establish prevailing industry standards.
Although
certain cases may warrant, or even require, such specialized
testimony,
an
presented
in
inflexible
every
rule
case
that
to
expert
prove
a
testimony
good-faith
must
be
defense
unreasonably would restrict the presentation of a defense that
ordinarily is based on the facts and circumstances of each case
and on a particular witness’ knowledge of the significance of
3
In asserting that the bankruptcy court and district court
misapplied the objective good-faith standard, the trustee relies
heavily on the standard as articulated in Christian Brothers
High School Endowment v. Bayou No. Leverage Fund, LLC (In re
Bayou Group), 439 B.R. 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), an out-of-circuit
district court opinion that has no precedential value here.
18
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
such evidence.
Pg: 19 of 37
See Meeks v. Red River Entm’t (In re Armstrong),
285 F.3d 1092, 1096 (8th Cir. 2002) (no precise definition for
good
faith,
which
should
be
decided
based
on
case-by-case
basis); Consove v. Cohen (In re Roco Corp.), 701 F.2d 978, 984
(1st Cir. 1983) (same).
Accordingly, we decline to consider the
trustee’s argument further and hold that the bankruptcy court
and the district courts applied the correct legal standard in
evaluating whether the bank proved its good-faith defense.
We
next
address
the
trustee’s
argument
that
the
bank
presented insufficient objective evidence to negate a finding
that, when the bank accepted FMI’s payments, the bank “should
have known” about FMI’s and Taneja’s fraudulent conduct.
The
trustee points to several circumstances that it submits should
have alerted the bank to FMI’s and Taneja’s fraudulent conduct.
The trustee also contends that because the bank’s witnesses who
testified
bank’s
about
evidence
evidence.
these
of
circumstances
good
faith
were
bank
constituted
employees,
purely
the
subjective
We disagree with the trustee’s arguments.
We observe, in accordance with our holding above, that the
objective component of the good-faith defense may be established
by lay or expert testimony, or both, depending on the nature of
the evidence at issue.
Here, the parties’ dispute centered on
the general practices in the warehouse lending industry and the
19
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 20 of 37
indicators of fraudulent conduct, if any, that were apparent
from the particular facts known to the bank’s officials.
Both
Garrett
and
Daugherty
had
extensive
knowledge
of
industry practices, including the common practices involved in
warehouse lender-borrower relationships, and both were able to
explain their reasons why FMI’s and Taneja’s conduct did not
raise indications of fraud despite FMI’s failure to sell their
mortgage
loans
in
the
secondary
market
in
a
timely
manner.
Their testimony also described the severe decline in the market
for mortgage-backed securities in 2007 and 2008, which provided
additional
lending
objective
industry
evidence
during
of
that
the
state
period.
of
In
the
light
warehouse
of
their
extensive experience in the warehouse lending industry and their
knowledge
of
the
particular
events
at
issue,
Garrett’s
and
Daugherty’s employment status did not affect the admissibility
of their testimony or otherwise indicate that expert testimony
was
required
on
the
objective
component
of
the
good-faith
defense.
We also observe that the bankruptcy court explicitly stated
that
it
considered
the
fact
that
Garrett
and
Daugherty
were
employed by the bank in assessing the weight to be given their
testimony.
Additionally, and significantly, the trustee did not
object to the testimony by Garrett and Daugherty relating to the
warehouse lending industry or the conditions in the market for
20
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 21 of 37
mortgage-backed securities in 2007 and 2008. 4
See Fed. R. Evid.
103 (a party may not claim error regarding admitted evidence if
he fails timely to object, unless the court plainly erred in
admitting the evidence).
Thus, we reject the trustee’s argument
that Garrett and Daugherty, by virtue of their employment with
the
bank,
did
not
provide
competent
evidence
regarding
the
objective component of the bank’s good-faith defense.
We
therefore
turn
to
discuss
the
evidence
cited
by
the
trustee, which he alleges should have signaled to the bank that
FMI and Taneja were engaged in a fraudulent scheme, and consider
whether the bank presented sufficient objective evidence of good
faith with regard to these circumstances.
The trustee first
points to FMI’s delay in providing collateral documents to the
bank in connection with some of FMI’s mortgage loans.
However,
Garrett testified that a new borrower’s untimely delivery of
such
documents
was
“common”
and
was
“consistent”
with
the
practices of other investors and warehouse lending customers at
the inception of their business relationship.
Also, Daugherty
stated that borrowers typically had difficulty adjusting to new
warehouse
lending
relationships,
4
because
“different
warehouse
Although the trustee raised objections regarding certain
aspects
of
Garrett’s
and
Daugherty’s
testimony
regarding
secondary purchasers and the marketability of unsold loans, the
trustee did not object to their general testimony regarding
industry standards or the conditions in the market in 2007 and
2008.
21
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 22 of 37
lenders require[d] different items.”
Critically, the evidence
showed that the bank always received from FMI the most vital
document,
the
original
promissory
holder’s security interest.
note
that
perfected
the
Thus, the record did not show that
the bank should have known that the notes were fraudulent simply
because
they
were
not
submitted
within
the
two-day
timeline
required by the parties’ lending agreement.
The trustee also submits that FMI’s failure to sell many of
its mortgage loans in the secondary market should have alerted a
reasonable
warehouse
lender
of
fraudulent
conduct.
However,
substantial evidence in the record refutes this argument.
Garrett
and
Daugherty
time”
“extraordinary
experiencing
explain
that
secondary
testified
the
during
that
a
2007
and
borrower’s
purchasers
is
warehouse
2008.
failure
“part
extensively
of
to
the
about
sell
only
the
industry
lending
Not
Both
was
did
mortgage
business”
of
Daugherty
loans
to
warehouse
lending generally, but he also stated that this was particularly
true during 2007 and 2008 when FMI was unable to sell many of
its loans.
Moreover, Garrett explained that it was common for
mortgage bankers intentionally to delay selling their mortgage
loans during this time, because they expected only a temporary
market
decline.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
the
record
contained sufficient objective evidence that FMI’s failure to
22
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 23 of 37
sell its loans to secondary purchasers did not serve as a signal
to the bank that FMI was engaging in fraudulent conduct.
This
testimony
concerning
the
curtailed
market
for
mortgage-backed securities also refutes the trustee’s argument
that
the
bank
fraudulent
should
conduct
have
known
because
about
FMI,
FMI’s
rather
and
than
Taneja’s
secondary
purchasers, directly made payments to the bank on certain loans.
Under
the
terms
of
FMI’s
agreement
with
the
bank,
FMI
was
required to repay the bank regardless whether FMI had sold the
loan obligations to secondary purchasers.
trustee’s
key
investigate
repayment
witness,
FMI’s
obligation
Robert
Patrick,
financial
and
who
affairs,
testified
And, notably, the
that
was
retained
acknowledged
FMI’s
actions
to
FMI’s
making
direct payments to the bank were not an indication of fraudulent
conduct.
The final two circumstances cited by the trustee arose from
conversations that Garrett and Daugherty had with Taneja and his
attorney during their October 2007 and January 2008 meetings. 5
During the first meeting, in which the parties discussed FMI’s
outstanding
loans,
Taneja
explained
5
that
one
of
FMI’s
loan
We do not address the trustee’s assertion that the bank
should have known about the fraud when the bank discovered FMI’s
fraudulent notes in April 2008.
The transfers in question in
this case occurred before April 2008; therefore, what the bank
should have known, beginning in April 2008, is not relevant to
our inquiry.
23
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 24 of 37
processors had left FMI unexpectedly, resulting in delays in
FMI’s production of its mortgage loan documentation.
Contrary
to the trustee’s position, this explanation by Taneja did not
signal
fraudulent
secondary
conduct
purchasers
had
when
the
tightened
evidence
their
established
standards
for
that
loan
documentation in 2007 and 2008, and that such purchasers would
not purchase mortgage obligations with incomplete documentation.
Additionally, Garrett confirmed with a representative of FMI’s
regular client and secondary purchaser, Wells Fargo, that the
outstanding
mortgage
loans
remained
documentation was incomplete.
unsold
because
the
loan
Thus, the bankruptcy court did
not clearly err in concluding that the circumstances surrounding
the October 2007 meeting did not show that the bank should have
known about the fraudulent conduct.
During
the
meeting
that
occurred
in
January
2008,
when
Garrett asked Taneja’s attorney whether FMI’s unsold loans were
fraudulent, the attorney responded that the loans were valid and
executed in “arms-length” transactions.
rejected
the
trustee’s
assertion
The bankruptcy court
that
this
conversation
demonstrated that the bank should have known about the ongoing
fraud.
The
court
determined
instead
that
Garrett
properly
accepted the attorney’s response in light of the fact that the
parties were attempting to “work out the problem of the unpaid
advances on the line of credit,” and that the bank was aware
24
Appeal: 13-1058
that
Doc: 29
the
Filed: 02/21/2014
value
significantly
of
the
Pg: 25 of 37
impaired.
mortgage
The
record
obligations
had
demonstrated
that
been
the
decrease in the market value of mortgage loans in the secondary
market was an industry-wide problem in 2007 and 2008.
Moreover,
after the January 2008 meeting, Garrett and Daugherty conducted
additional investigation into the collateral securing some of
FMI’s loans and did not discover any problems at that time.
Based on this evidence, we conclude that the bankruptcy
court did not clearly err in rejecting the trustee’s position
that
the
fraudulent
bank
should
conduct
have
based
known
on
the
about
FMI’s
conversation
attorney at the January 2008 meeting.
and
Taneja’s
with
Taneja’s
Rather, when considered
as a whole, the circumstances relied on by the trustee indicated
only that FMI had financial difficulties, which was not uncommon
in the warehouse lending industry during 2007 and 2008.
The
bankruptcy court found that Garrett and Daugherty were credible
and
knowledgeable
witnesses
warehouse lending industry.
in
their
testimony
about
the
Accordingly, the bankruptcy court
accepted their testimony regarding the devastating conditions of
the mortgage-backed security market in 2007 and 2008, when the
relevant
payments
by
FMI
were
made.
“Deference
to
the
bankruptcy court’s findings is particularly appropriate when, as
here, the bankruptcy court presided over a bench trial in which
witnesses
testified
and
the
25
court
made
credibility
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
determinations.”
Pg: 26 of 37
Fairchild Dornier GmbH v. Official Comm. of
Unsecured Creditors (In re Dornier Aviation), 453 F.3d 225, 235
(4th Cir. 2006).
On this record, we are not left with a firm or definite
conviction that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the
bank presented sufficient objective evidence of good faith.
Klein, 845 F.2d at 79.
See
Thus, we hold that the bankruptcy court
did not clearly err in concluding that the bank accepted the
relevant transfers from FMI in good faith and without knowledge
of facts that should have alerted the bank that the transfers
were part of a fraudulent scheme. 6
See In re Nieves, 648 F.3d at
238.
III.
In
sum,
we
conclude
that
the
district
court
and
the
bankruptcy court applied the correct legal principles relevant
to evaluating the bank’s good-faith affirmative defense.
We
also conclude that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in
determining
that
the
bank
satisfied
6
its
burden
of
proving
a
We find no merit in the trustee’s assertion that the
bankruptcy court erroneously imposed on the trustee the burden
to disprove the bank’s affirmative defense. The court properly
weighed the entirety of the evidence and rendered its decision
accordingly.
26
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 27 of 37
good-faith defense under Section 548(c). 7
Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s decision upholding the bankruptcy court’s
dismissal of the trustee’s adversary action.
AFFIRMED
7
Because we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not
clearly err in accepting the bank’s affirmative defense of good
faith, we need not reach the trustee’s argument regarding
whether the trustee was entitled to a “Ponzi scheme presumption”
of fraudulent conveyances.
27
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 28 of 37
WYNN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Bankruptcy
Code
Section
548(c)
provides
an
defense to transferees who take in good faith.
affirmative
Importantly,
good faith has not just a subjective, but also an objective
“observance of reasonable commercial standards” component.
To
succeed with its good faith defense, First Tennessee Bank had to
prove
both
proffer
any
aspects
of
evidence
good
to
faith.
support
a
But
here,
finding
it
that
failed
it
to
received
transfers from FMI with objective good faith in the face of
several alleged red flags.
district
court
to
make
Because it was clear error for the
the
unsupported
finding
that
First
Tennessee Bank received transfers from FMI with objective good
faith, I must respectively dissent from the contrary view of my
colleagues in the majority.
I.
We review a district court finding of good faith for clear
error.
“A finding is clearly erroneous if no evidence in the
record supports it . . . .”
Consol. Coal Co. v. Local 1643,
United Mine Workers of Am., 48 F.3d 125, 128 (4th Cir. 1995).
Thus, we reverse findings of fact that lack evidentiary support—
and that is, in my view, what must be done here.
28
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 29 of 37
II.
Under Bankruptcy Code Section 548(a), a bankruptcy trustee
can avoid fraudulent transfers occurring within the two years
prior to a bankruptcy petition’s filing if those transfers were
made
with
intent
consideration.
to
defraud
or
for
11 U.S.C. § 548(a).
less
than
reasonable
Nevertheless, a recipient
of transferred property can keep the property if it is able to
establish the elements of the good faith defense embodied in
Section 548(c).
11 U.S.C. § 548(c).
In In re Nieves, this Circuit put contours on the good
faith defense.
648 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2011).
notes,
that
to
to
show
we
transferee
held
needs
establish
both
the
good
subjective
As the majority
faith
and
defense,
objective
a
good
faith:
“Good
faith”
thus
contains
both
subjective
(“honesty in fact”) and objective (“observance of
reasonable commercial standards”) components. Under
the subjective prong, a court looks to “the honesty”
and “state of mind” of the party acquiring the
property.
Under the objective prong, a party acts
without good faith by failing to abide by routine
business practices.
We therefore arrive at the
conclusion that the objective good-faith standard
probes what the transferee knew or should have known,
taking into consideration the customary practices of
the industry in which the transferee operates.
Id. at 239-40 (citations and footnotes omitted).
In essence,
transferees may not bury their heads in the sand, “willfully
turn[]
a
blind
eye
to
a
suspicious
29
transaction[,]”
and
then
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 30 of 37
expect to reap the benefits of the good faith defense.
242
(quotation
ignoran[t]
in
marks
the
omitted).
face
of
A
Id. at
transferee
“wil[l]ful[ly]
which
out
facts
cried
investigation . . . cannot have taken in good faith.”
for
Id. at
241.
Importantly, it is the transferee who bears the burden of
proof on the good faith defense.
As this Court has stated, “we
agree with the weight of authority holding that [the good faith
defense is] a defense to an avoidance action which defendant
bears the burden to prove.”
Id. at 237 n.2 (citing In re Smoot,
265
E.D.
B.R.
128,
140
(Bankr.
Va.
1999)
(collecting
cases
holding that the burden of proof rests on the transferee)).
In
sum,
to
establish
the
good
faith
defense,
First
Tennessee Bank needed to show not only subjective good faith but
also objective good faith.
burden
of
showing
that
Thus, First Tennessee Bank bore the
its
conduct
comported
with
routine
practices in its industry and that its response to potential
“red
flags”
about
FMI’s
fraud
comported
objectively reasonable warehouse lender.
with
that
of
an
The record before us
shows that First Tennessee Bank failed to carry its burden.
III.
Preliminarily, I must address several general points that
the majority makes, and with which I take issue, regarding the
30
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 31 of 37
nature of the evidence required in cases such as this one and
the nature of the evidence actually proffered here.
First, I agree with the majority that First Tennessee Bank
could meet its burden as to the objective component of its good
faith defense without presenting expert testimony on prevailing
industry standards.
evidence
would
To be sure, such objective, third-party
almost
industry standards.
certainly
be
helpful
in
establishing
And one cannot help but wonder why it was
not proffered here.
Regardless,
fact
witness
testimony
could
suffice.
For
example, a fact witness could testify that he attended industry
conferences and drafted the pertinent bank’s policies based on,
and
in
accordance
with,
best
practice
materials
received
at
those conferences. 8
The problem here is that First Tennessee Bank, which bore
the burden of proving its good faith defense, failed to elicit
such testimony from its fact witnesses.
8
Instead, it relied on
That being said, I find the suggestion that expert
testimony might somehow bungle “the presentation of a defense
that ordinarily is based on the facts and circumstances of each
case and on a particular witness’ [sic] knowledge of the
significance of such evidence[,]” ante at 18-19, troubling.
Indeed, that suggestion seems to fly in the face of the very
point of the good faith defense’s objective component—which is
based not on case-specific facts or fact witness views, but
rather on what the transferee knew or should have known, “taking
into consideration the customary practices of the industry in
which the transferee operates.” In re Nieves, 648 F.3d at 240.
31
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 32 of 37
generalities from those witnesses such as having read the Wall
Street Journal and having worked in the industry for many years.
Further, an executive’s extensive knowledge of an industry
does
not
necessarily
industry standards.
mean
that
his
business
comports
with
Indeed, that very knowledge might be used
effectively for ill, enabling the executive to conceive of and
perpetuate
heads.
a
scheme
that
turns
industry
standards
on
their
Industry knowledge and experience thus shed little light
on whether an executive or his business acted with objective
good faith.
Moreover,
it
is
common
knowledge
that
the
economy,
including the mortgage-backed securities industry—was in turmoil
in
2007
and
example,
2008.
whether
But
that
First
fact
Tennessee
does
not
Bank’s
illuminate,
attributing
for
FMI’s
problematic conduct to the slowdown was reasonable in light of
industry standards.
For it is also common knowledge that frauds
such as Ponzi schemes are particularly vulnerable to implosion
during economic downturns.
That FMI’s troubles coincided with
an economic downturn thus does not resolve objective good faith
questions.
Objective good faith cannot simply be assumed in
tough times; it remains an affirmative defense that must always
be proven.
Here,
Garrett
and
Daugherty
may
have
explained
reasons” why FMI’s conduct did not suggest fraud.
32
“their
Ante at 20.
Appeal: 13-1058
But
Doc: 29
“their”
faith—not
Filed: 02/21/2014
reasons
of
are
objective
Pg: 33 of 37
evidence
good
of
faith,
“their”
taking
subjective
into
good
consideration
industry standards.
Finally, I agree with the majority opinion that Garrett’s
and Daugherty’s employment with First Tennessee Bank did not
affect
the
admissibility
incompetent.
of
their
testimony
or
render
it
But the record is irreconcilable with the majority
opinion’s
assertion
Garrett’s
and
that
the
Daugherty’s
Trustee
“general
failed
to
testimony”
object
regarding
to
the
industry or economic conditions in 2007 and 2008.
Ante at 20-
21.
objected
On
the
contrary,
the
Trustee
repeatedly
to
Garrett’s and Daugherty’s attempts at “general testimony,” on
the bases that the testimony was overbroad, that neither witness
was tendered as an expert, and that the testimony should be
tethered specifically to First Tennessee Bank, for which both
men were testifying strictly as fact witnesses.
1376, 1379, 1383, 1512, 1517.
First
Tennessee
Bank
See, e.g., J.A.
In response to these objections,
reiterated
that
“[i]t’s
just
background
information[,]” and that it was “not trying to establish what
every [actor] does[,]” and limited lines of inquiry to First
Tennessee Bank specifically.
1517.
See, e.g., J.A. 1376, 1384, 1512,
The majority opinion’s suggestion that challenges to any
broad, industry-level testimony were waived is thus misplaced.
33
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
More
Filed: 02/21/2014
importantly,
Pg: 34 of 37
objections
aside,
looking
to
the
testimony that First Tennessee Bank proffered on objective good
faith, I must conclude that the scant evidence fails to support
the
bankruptcy
Specifically,
asserting
flags
lender.
the
that
failed
court’s
to
objective
Trustee
First
identified
Tennessee
comport
good
with
Bank’s
that
of
faith
multiple
response
a
finding.
red
to
flags,
those
reasonable
red
warehouse
The Trustee argues that First Tennessee Bank failed to
carry its burden of proof and that the bankruptcy court erred in
finding that “the bank’s actions were in accord with . . . the
industry’s usual practices.”
In re Taneja, 08-13293-RGM, 2012
WL 3073175, at *15 (Bankr. E.D. Va. July 30, 2012).
After
carefully reviewing the record, I cannot even discern what those
industry
practices
are,
let
alone
find
evidence
that
First
Tennessee Bank’s actions comported with them.
Turning to some of these red flags, the Trustee asserted,
for example, that at a meeting between First Tennessee Bank and
FMI’s
counsel,
loans
were
Mr.
Garrett
fraudulent.
Mr.
specifically
Garrett
asked
then
whether
testified
FMI’s
that
in
response, FMI’s counsel indicated that the loans were valid, and
that First Tennessee Bank relied on the statement and followed
up by “look[ing] at property, pull[ing] appraisals, [and] saw
FMI listed as the mortgagor on some of them.”
J.A. 1489.
What
is missing from the record is any shred of evidence that First
34
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
Pg: 35 of 37
Tennessee Bank’s reliance and investigation comported with those
of a reasonable warehouse lender in light of industry standards.
In
other
words,
the
bankruptcy
court
had
no
support
for
a
finding that despite First Tennessee Bank’s own concerns that
FMI’s loans might be fraudulent, it received all the relevant
transfers
in
not
only
subjective,
but
also
objective,
good
faith.
A
second
belatedly
transmit.
example:
delivered
The
Trustee
collateral
highlighted
documents
it
was
that
FMI
required
to
As the majority opinion notes, “Garrett testified
that a new borrower’s untimely delivery of such documents was
‘common’
and
was
‘consistent’
with
the
practices
of
other
investors and warehouse lending customers at the inception of
their business relationship.”
Ante at 21.
But that experience
was “common” and “consistent” only with First Tennessee Bank’s
customers and “what we’re dealing with . . . .”
testimony
centered
on
Bank’s—“customers,”
“all
J.A.
experience . . . .”
of
1506,
your”—i.e.,
and
was
J.A. 1491.
First
“[b]ased
The
Tennessee
on
your
Id.; see also, e.g., J.A. 1543 (Q: “Mr.
Daugherty, do most of your customers get you the full collateral
package within two days?” A: “No.” (emphasis added)).
from
the
industry
record
practices
is
and
objective
how
FMI’s
evidence
delays
regarding
and
First
Missing
standard
Tennessee
Bank’s response to those compared to those industry practices.
35
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
A
Filed: 02/21/2014
third
example:
Pg: 36 of 37
The
Trustee
asserted
that
FMI’s
attributing its failure to sell loans to an employee’s having
gone on vacation and then not returning constituted a red flag.
Mr. Daugherty testified that he believed this excuse and had no
reason
to
bankruptcy
suspect
court
Taneja,
2012
offered
no
that
it
was
called
3073175,
WL
the
at
evidence
about
not
the
explanation
*13.
how
a
Yet
truth.
Even
“unusual.”
First
reasonable
the
In
Tennessee
warehouse
re
Bank
lender
would have responded or whether its response comported with that
industry standard.
For
various
red
flags
the
Trustee
raised,
the
majority
opinion ascribes much to the fact that the lending and mortgage
industries were in turmoil in 2007 and 2008.
Surely no one
doubts that the entire economy was in a state of upheaval during
that
time.
But
that
fact
tells
us
little
about
whether
a
business’s conduct in the face of alleged red flags, even if in
a
time
of
standards.
crisis,
comported
with
industry
practices
and
If economic turmoil gives businesses a free pass on
needing to prove objective good faith, even businesses falling
far
short
of
ignoran[t]
in
industry
the
standards
face
of
but
facts
rather
which
“wil[l]ful[ly]
cried
out
for
investigation[,]” In re Nieves, 648 F.3d at 241, could succeed
with a good faith defense so long as their implosion coincided
36
Appeal: 13-1058
Doc: 29
Filed: 02/21/2014
with an economic downtown.
Pg: 37 of 37
This is not, and should not be, the
law.
IV.
In sum, I agree with the majority that “‘[d]eference to the
bankruptcy court’s findings is particularly appropriate when . .
. the bankruptcy court presided over a bench trial in which
witnesses
testified
determinations.’”
and
the
court
made
credibility
Ante at 25-26 (quoting Fairchild Dornier GmbH
v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors, 453 F.3d 225, 235 (4th
Cir.
2006)).
bankruptcy
But
court
the
issue
is
not
credibility
assessed
here
or
that,
or
weighed
how,
the
testimony.
Instead, the issue is whether First Tennessee Bank, which bore
the burden of proof, failed to proffer any evidence or elicit
any testimony to support a finding that it received transfers
from
FMI
with
objective
alleged red flags.
good
It did.
faith
in
the
face
of
certain
And because findings unsupported by
the record must be overturned on clear error review, I would
reverse
the
unsupported
objective
good
faith
finding,
a
necessary component of First Tennessee Bank’s good faith defense
under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c).
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
37
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?