Record Company’s Injunction Attempt Against Rock Band Fails

Victory Records’ attempt to prevent the rock band A Day to Remember (ADTR) from releasing an album in the Fall of 2013 failed because it couldn’t establish the elements for injunctive relief under Illinois law.

In Woodard v. Victory Records, 2013 WL 5517926 (N.D.Ill. 2013), the defendant record company (“Victory” or the “Record Company”) sued to prevent the Florida pop-punk quartet from self releasing its Common Courtesy record.

The Court denied the Victory’s request to block the band’s album release.

To get a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show:

  • irreparable harm,
  • an inadequate remedy at law,
  • a likelihood of success on the merits;
  • the harm that will result if the injunction isn’t entered will outweigh harm to the opposing side if the injunction is entered.  *2.   

Victory established a likelihood of success on the merits.  “This is not a high burden.”  All the movant must show is a “better than negligible” chance of winning on the merits.

The crux of the dispute was the parties’ differing interpretations of the word “album” as it was used in the contract. 

The Court found the term ambiguous and each side’s interpretation was plausible.  ( *3).  Because each side’s reading of the contract had facial validity, the Record Company demonstrated a better than negligible chance of prevailing on the merits.

Irreparable harm denotes “likely” injury that is “real” and “immediate”, not “conjectural or hypothetical.”

The movant has to show money damages would not adequately remedy the harm suffered without an injunction.  ( *3).

Here, Victory couldn’t establish likely irreparable harm or an inadequate remedy at law because ADTR was a known quantity. 

ADTR had released several successful albums under the Victory label.  Because of this, Victory could gauge any lost profits resulting from ADTR’s independent album release. 

This ability to extrapolate the album’s likely profits from ADTR’s prior sales meant Victory had an adequate legal remedy (e.g. a suit for money damages) for breach of the recording contract. 

The Court also rejected Victory’s reputational harm argument – that if ADTR is allowed to self-release an album and the album is flawed and doesn’t sell, Victory’s reputation will suffer.  The Court held that since ADTR was perennially successful and had a wide fan base, it wasn’t likely that ADTR would intentionally (or not) release an inferior music product. (*4-5).

The balance of harms element also favored ADTR.  The Court applied a “sliding scale” analysis: the more likely a movant is to win, the less the balance of harms must weigh in the movant’s favor (and vice versa). (*2).

 Here, the Record Company had a lost profits breach of contract remedy if the band breached the recording contract.  In contrast, if ADTR was prevented from releasing its album with no end in sight to the underlying litigation, the band’s fan support could likely erode in an ultra-competitive industry (the music business) resulting in definite financial harm to the band.  (*5)

Take-aways:

Victory Records illustrates that injunctive relief is difficult to get where the moving party has a clear legal remedy.

 The Court found that past album sales provided a basis for lost profits and a sufficient legal remedy if the band breached the recording contract.

 

The Illinois Fraudulent Transfer Act – An Illinois Case Note

Heartland Bank v. Goers, 2013 IL App (3d) 12084-U illustrates the procedural and substantive hurdles a creditor’s counsel must clear to enforce a judgment against a guarantor who transfers his personal assets into a trust.

The plaintiff bank in sued the defendant for breach of a commercial guarantee after defendant’s company defaulted on a $650,000 loan.  The bank obtained a money judgment against the defendant and issued citation proceedings against him.  During post-judgment proceedings, the bank learned that before the money judgment entered against the defendant, he transferred all  his assets, including a house, cars and bank accounts into a family trust (the Trust).

The trial court ordered the defendant to relinquish one-half of his bank and stock accounts, two cars, and 50% of the sale proceeds of his residence. Defendant appealed.

Result and Reasons:

The Court first held that the trial court wrongly ordered the sale and turnover of 50% of the house sale proceeds under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, 740 ILCS 160/1 et seq. (the UFTA).

The UFTA deems a transfer fraudulent against a creditor where (1) for claims arising before or after the transfer, the debtor transfers property with the actual intent to impede the creditor; or (2) for claims arising before the transfer, the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfer.  740 ILCS 160/5, 6; ¶ 16.

A “transfer” means the disposal of an “asset” – defined by the UFTA as property of the debtor that is not held in tenancy by entirety. ¶ 16

It’s difficult to prove a debtor’s subjective intent to impede a creditor (a UFTA Section 5 claim) so most UFTA claims are brought under UFTA Section 6: that the debtor’s transfer caused its insolvency.

The court found the defendant and his wife owned the home in tenancy by entirety at the time they transferred the home to the trust.  Because of this, the UFTA didn’t apply to the transfer.

An interest in tenant-by-the-entirety property cannot be fraudulently transferred against a creditor of only one of the tenants. (¶ 18).

Reversing the turnover and sale of the house, the Court cited Illinois’ post-judgment statute which dictates that real property held in tenancy by the entirety is not liable to be sold upon judgment entered against only one of the tenants.  (¶ 18,) 735 ILCS 5/12-112.

The Court did uphold the trial court’s turnover order involving the defendant’s investment account funds.

Under UFTA Section 6 – which governs pre-transfer claims – a creditor must show by a preponderance of the evidence (it’s “more likely than not”) that:

  • its claim arose before the transfer,
  • the debtor made the transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transferred property; and
  • the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer or was rendered insolvent as a result of the transfer.

Here, the corporate borrower’s default in July 2009 immediately triggered defendant’s obligations under the guarantee.  And since the corporation’s default predated defendant’s transferring his bank account to the trust by two months, plaintiff’s claim against defendant arose before he transferred the investment account to the Trust. ( ¶¶ 31-33)

The court also found that at the time defendant transferred the account, he was insolvent within the meaning of the UFTA.  The defendant’s financial statements revealed that the guaranteed loan amount far exceeded defendant’s total assets.  As a result, plaintiff established all required elements of a UFTA Section 6 constructive fraud claim. ( ¶ 35)

Take-aways:

1/ A judgment creditor can’t force the sale of debtor’s real estate that’s held in tenancy by entirety property;

2/ A UFTA claim applies to any right to payment; regardless of whether or not the claim is liquidated (reduced to a fixed numerical amount);

3/ The Court’s UFTA  insolvency calculus takes into account a debtor’s contingent liabilities; not just its current ones.

Express Trusts and Bankruptcy Discharge: some Quick Hits

Adas v. Rutkowski, 2013 WL 6865417 (N.D.Ill. 2013), illustrates the confluence of Federal bankruptcy law and state law fiduciary duty and express trust principles in a case involving a failed construction partnership.

The plaintiff and bankrupt debtor (defendant) formed a partnership to buy real estate, build a house  on it and split the profits once the house was sold.

The venture failed and the plaintiff got stuck with a sizeable deficiency judgment in a lender’s foreclosure suit.  After the defendant filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiff objected to defendant’s discharge based on defendant’s lengthy pattern of keeping plaintiff in the dark about the failed venture’s finances.  The bankruptcy court agreed and the defendant appealed.

Held: Affirmed.  Defendant’s obligation to plaintiff is nondischargeable.

Rules/Reasoning:

Normally, a bankruptcy filing gives a debtor a reprieve from creditor collection efforts and forgives (or “discharges”) most of his debts. 

An exception is where the bankrupt debtor engages in fraud, defalcation, embezzlement or larceny.  11 U.S.C. §. 523.

The creditor must show (1) an express trust or fiduciary relationship between the debtor and creditor, and (2) that the debt was caused by fraud or defalcation.  Defalcation equals (roughly) intentional conduct that’s more than negligence but less than fraud.  * 4, 8.

Express Trust – State and Federal Law

The court held that the parties’ business relationship constituted an express trust. 

In Illinois, an express trust exists where (1) there is an intent to create a trust, (2) definite subject matter or trust property, (3) trust beneficiaries, (4) a trustee, (5) a specific trust purpose, and (6) delivery of trust property to the trustee. 

While trusts are normally manifested in a writing (such as a will or property deed), it doesn’t have to be and a trust can be shown through circumstantial evidence. 

The Federal courts view the trust hallmarks as (1) segregation of funds (no commingling, e.g.), (2) management of the funds by an intermediary, and (3) the entity that controls the trust funds or property has only bare legal title to the funds.  *6.

The court found the evidence established a trust arrangement between the parties.  There was an intent to create a trust, trust property (loan funds), subject matter (the house), a trustee (defendant), a beneficiary (plaintiff) and delivery of the trust property.  *5.

Fiduciary Duty

The Court also blocked defendant’s discharge because defendant breached his fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.  Federal law defines a fiduciary relationship as one where there is an imbalance of power between parties and a stronger party takes advantage of weaker one.

Here, the defendant occupied a position of power and influence over the plaintiff and abused the position by excluding the plaintiff from all aspects of the parties business. *7.

Defalcation

Finally, the Court refused to discharge defendant’s debt to plaintiff because of the defendant’s “defalcation.”  

Defalcation applies where a debtor’s conduct is intentional or criminally reckless.  The conduct must go beyond negligence, doesn’t rise to the level of fraud, but still requires subjective intent. 

Defendant’s conduct easily met the defalcation standard.  He engaged in a pattern of secretive and ethically challenged business activity by submitting inflated sworn statements and phantom receipts, commingling funds, and hiding project data from the plaintiff.   *8-9.  

Comments:

(1)  An express trust will exist where someone gives money or property to another with explicit directions as to how to apply those funds; and no writing is required;

(3) a creditor can defeat a bankrupt debtor’s discharge if it can show the debtor intentionally or recklessly violates an obligation to the creditor – even if the debtor’s conduct doesn’t rise to the level of fraud.