Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 15-0489
Click for Official Page

RALPH S. JANVEY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR THE STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LIMITED, ET AL.; OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE v. THE GOLF CHANNEL, INCORPORATED; TGC, L.L.C., DOING BUSINESS AS GOLF CHANNEL

Oral argument was held on January 12, 2016. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on April 1, 2016. File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 2 articles about this case.

August 10, 2015

Fifth Circuit Takes a Mulligan: Janvey v. Golf Channel

from National Law Review

The Court has issued opinions:

March 11, 2015

The Fifth Circuit Slices The Golf Channel Into The Pond

from Forbes

Opinion

April 1, 2016

Guzman
Hecht
Green
Johnson
Willett
Lehrmann
Boyd
Devine
Brown

Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court.View Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video PDF

 

Court of Appeals

None

Trial Court

None

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2016-05-13 Case Stored  
2016-04-01 Opinion issued   Certified question answered by the Court
  This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between January 28, 2016 and April 1, 2016.  
2016-01-28 Post submission brief filed (Appellee in case)  
2016-01-22 Letter Filed  
2016-01-20 Post submission brief filed (Appellant in case)  
2016-01-12 Oral argument  
2016-01-11 Exhibits in case/cause filed (Appellant in case)  
2016-01-08 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2016-01-06 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2015-12-21 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2015-12-18 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-12-18 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2015-12-18 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-12-18 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-12-18 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-12-18 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-12-18 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-12-18 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2015-12-04 Reply Brief (Appellant in case)  
2015-11-20 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
2015-11-19 Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner)  
2015-11-17 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-17 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-17 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-17 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-16 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-16 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2015-11-16 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-16 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-16 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-06 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2015-11-06 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2015-11-04 Brief on the Merits (Appellee in case)  
2015-11-04 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-11-03 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-09-22 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-09-22 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-09-22 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2015-09-22 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2015-09-22 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2015-09-22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2015-09-22 Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Appellant in case)  
2015-09-16 Brief on the Merits (Appellant in case)  
2015-08-05 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2015-07-23 Notice of Appearance  
2015-07-22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2015-07-22 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2015-07-21 Notice of Appearance  
2015-07-21 Notice of Appearance  
2015-07-21 Notice of Appearance  
2015-07-17 Case set for oral argument   The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.
2015-07-17 Certified Question disposed Certified Question accepted
2015-07-17 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2015-07-17 Certified Question accepted
2015-07-07 Letter Filed  
2015-07-06 Letter Filed  
2015-07-03 Notice requesting filing fee  
2015-07-01 Case Record Filed  
2015-07-01 Certified Question filed  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
TGC, L.L.C., doing business as Golf Channel
Mr. Theodore W. Daniel
Mr. Kyle Morris Schindler
Ms. Katherine D. Mackillop
Mr. Jonathan S. Franklin
Appellee
Golf Channel, Incorporated
Mr. Kyle Morris Schindler
Mr. Theodore W. Daniel
Ms. Katherine D. Mackillop
Appellee
Janvey, Ralph S.
Ms. Stephanie F. Cagniart
Mr. Timothy S. Durst
Mr. Scott D. Powers
Mr. Kevin M. Sadler
Appellant
Official Stanford Investors Committee
Mr. Edward Frazer Valdespino
Mr. Edward C. Snyder III
Mr. Nicholas A. Foley
Mr. Douglas J. Buncher
Appellant

Amici Curiae

Amicus Curiae Counsel
David Toms Golf, LLC
Mr. Donald Richard Jones
Toms, David Wayne
Mr. Donald Richard Jones
Merge Healthcare Incorporated
Mr. Salvador A. Carranza
Mr. Michael J. Summerhill
Ms. Meghan E. Tepas
Mr. John Martin Jackson
Mr. Charles L. Babcock
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Mary Angela Jenkins
ATP Tour, Inc.
Mary L. O'Connor
PGA Tour, Inc.
Mary L. O'Connor
International Players Championship, Inc.
Mary L. O'Connor
IMG Worldwide, Inc.
Mary L. O'Connor
The University of Miami
Mr. W. Scott Hastings
Texas Association of Broadcasters
Josiah M. Daniel III
Mr. Thomas S. Leatherbury
Gregory F. Miller

Whose viewpoint determines "reasonable value" under the fraudulent-transfer act?

fraud fraudulent transfer

This dispute grows out of the Stanford ponzi-scheme litigation in the Fifth Circuit. A central piece of those cases is how to give priority to different creditors under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.

The Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in this case in March 2015, but then fairly quickly withdrew it and certified this question to the Texas Supreme Court:

Considering the definition of “value” in section 24.004(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the definition of “reasonably equivalent value” in section 24.004(d) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and the comment in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act stating that “value” is measured “from a creditor’s viewpoint,” what showing of “value” under TUFTA is sufficient for a transferee to prove the elements of the affirmative defense under section 24.009(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code?

The Court has accepted the certified question and, after the case is briefed, will likely set the case for oral argument before issuing an opinion.

...
...