GEORGE L. MILLER V. ANDERSON MEDIA CORPORATION et al.

Summarized by Bradley Pearce , Pearce Law PLLC
3 weeks 1 day ago

Case Type:

Business

Case Status:

Affirmed

Citation:

25-1675 (3rd Circuit, Jan 30,2026) Not Published

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The issue of when a one-year discovery extension to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act's four-year statute of limitations begins to run is an issue of law if the facts that could have put the plaintiff on notice of a possible fraudulent transfer are susceptible to more than one interpretation. In this case, statements made during a settlement meeting regarding prior litigation gave the plaintiff (in this case, a Chapter 7 trustee) notice of facts that required the trustee to investigate the transfers before the ordinary four-year statute of limitations expired.

Procedural context:

Following discovery, the bankruptcy court granted the defendants summary judgment on the Chapter 7 trustee's fraudulent transfer claim. The bankruptcy court ruled that the trustee's claim was barred by the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act's four-year statute of limitations because the trustee was aware of acts in 2018 that would have led a reasonable person to investigate whether a fraudulent transfer had occurred. The Trustee appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court. The Trustee then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Facts:

Without getting into the weeds, two related entities filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions in July 2016. One Chapter 7 trustee was appointed to administer the estates. In 2018, the trustee sued a non-debtor related entity ("ANConnect") and other companies because ANConnect's $29 million sale of assets to one of the debtors in the year before the filing of the Chapter 7 petition was voidable under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA") so that the trustee should recover funds paid by the buyer-debtor to ANConnect. Three months after the Trustee sued ANConnect, the Trustee, his attorneys, and accountant met with ANConnect's officers, including its Chief Financial Officer. During the meeting, the CFO stated that ANConnect was essentially judgment-proof and that ANConnect had transferred "a million dollars or two" to related entities. Two and a half years later, in March 2021, ANConnect produced documents to the trustee that showed that, at about the same time as the debtors filed their Chapter 7 petitions, ANConnect had transferred more than 80% of the 2015 sale proceeds to other related entities. Notwithstanding the disclosures by ANConnect's CFO in 2018, the trustee did not sue to challenge the 2016 transfers from ANConnect until 2021, more than four years after the transfers occurred. When challenged by the defendants, the trustee argued that the one-year discovery extension of the UFTA's statute of limitations did not begin to run until ANConnect produced the documents in March 2021.

Judge(s):

RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and MASCOTT, Circuit Judges

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!