[quote=""BarbaraPatterson""]I think the AIFL believes incorrectly, that by changing their name to the AIFA, that they will not be liable for the debt created by the AIFL.[/quote]
Depends on the ownership structure. If the AIFA is in fact a new corporate entity and AH isn't directly involved as a stockholder or board member, then they might be correct in doing this. And he may well have been willing to do that so that the league would not have to suffer from his past mistakes. It could be that Mink & Morris, and/or any other of the league owners for that matter, decided that they didn't want to invest their money & efforts, sign stock certificates, or compete in the AIFL with its impending and quite possibly increasing legal debt. So they started a new corporate entity, slightly altered the name of the league, with the implied agreement to bring AH back into it once he resolves his AIFL legal matters.
AIFL to go to the PIFL?
-
BarbaraPatterson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:37 pm
[quote=""phydeaux72""]Depends on the ownership structure. If the AIFA is in fact a new corporate entity and AH isn't directly involved as a stockholder or board member, then they might be correct in doing this. And he may well have been willing to do that so that the league would not have to suffer from his past mistakes. It could be that Mink & Morris, and/or any other of the league owners for that matter, decided that they didn't want to invest their money & efforts, sign stock certificates, or compete in the AIFL with its impending and quite possibly increasing legal debt. So they started a new corporate entity, slightly altered the name of the league, with the implied agreement to bring AH back into it once he resolves his AIFL legal matters.[/quote]
With the $600,000 in debt, and most if not all of the teams in place, the AIFA would be very hard to try to convince anyone, that they are indeed a "new" company.
Actually the new owners might have created more problems then they resolved. Transferring assets for the purpose of defrauding creditors from lawsuits, or even the threat of a lawsuit is a criminal act,
"A person who...in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;...shall be fined..., imprisoned..., or both."
Thats called JAIL
With the $600,000 in debt, and most if not all of the teams in place, the AIFA would be very hard to try to convince anyone, that they are indeed a "new" company.
Actually the new owners might have created more problems then they resolved. Transferring assets for the purpose of defrauding creditors from lawsuits, or even the threat of a lawsuit is a criminal act,
"A person who...in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;...shall be fined..., imprisoned..., or both."
Thats called JAIL
-
The Man, The Myth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:31 am
Haines "bought out"
It would appear that Andrew has been bought out by the remaining AIFA owners. Now, if that buyout happens to equal about $600k, that would settle the suit.More going on than meets the eye.
-
BarbaraPatterson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:37 pm
[quote=""The Man, The Myth""]It would appear that Andrew has been bought out by the remaining AIFA owners. Now, if that buyout happens to equal about $600k, that would settle the suit.More going on than meets the eye.[/quote]
The only way this buy out would be legal, is if the AIFA has received creditors approval in advance. Since this is such a "surprise" to everyone, I'm assuming that creditors have not been satisifed.
Granted it is possible that all of the creditors have reached an agreement, but I doubt it considering the past and considering that no one was aware of this earlier.
The only way this buy out would be legal, is if the AIFA has received creditors approval in advance. Since this is such a "surprise" to everyone, I'm assuming that creditors have not been satisifed.
Granted it is possible that all of the creditors have reached an agreement, but I doubt it considering the past and considering that no one was aware of this earlier.
In 1984, this Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act was revised and renamed the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). Under state and federal fraudulent transfer laws, a person who owes a debt cannot transfer or convey assets if the intent is to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors. The UFTA creates a right of action for any creditor against any debtor and any other person who has received property from the debtor in a fraudulent transfer. The UFTA has been adopted in many states, and others have enacted similar laws prohibiting a debtor from transferring assets in order to keep creditors from being paid.
Because it is difficult to prove intent to defraud, laws prohibiting fraudulent transfers are often assumed to be violated if a “badge of fraud” is present. Thus, the debtor is assumed to have made the transfer to defraud creditors in violation of the UFTA or other state fraudulent transfer laws if she:
makes the transfer directly after being sued or threatened with litigation (suspicious timing);
transfers property to a business partner, friend or relative (an insider);
actually controls the property although it is no longer in her name;
sells the asset for a price below its value; and/or
transfers everything she owns, leaving no assets for herself.
http://www.mylawyer.com/guide.asp?level=2&id=23
Because it is difficult to prove intent to defraud, laws prohibiting fraudulent transfers are often assumed to be violated if a “badge of fraud” is present. Thus, the debtor is assumed to have made the transfer to defraud creditors in violation of the UFTA or other state fraudulent transfer laws if she:
makes the transfer directly after being sued or threatened with litigation (suspicious timing);
transfers property to a business partner, friend or relative (an insider);
actually controls the property although it is no longer in her name;
sells the asset for a price below its value; and/or
transfers everything she owns, leaving no assets for herself.
http://www.mylawyer.com/guide.asp?level=2&id=23
The issue really is "What did the AIFL own?"
[quote=""BarbaraPatterson""]With the $600,000 in debt, and most if not all of the teams in place, the AIFA would be very hard to try to convince anyone, that they are indeed a "new" company.
Actually the new owners might have created more problems then they resolved. Transferring assets for the purpose of defrauding creditors from lawsuits, or even the threat of a lawsuit is a criminal act,
"A person who...in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;...shall be fined..., imprisoned..., or both."
Thats called JAIL[/quote]
I think it goes back to phydeaux72's comment about ownership structure. If the AIF"L" was owned by AH himself, with the teams merely licensees of the league, then only the league and (after the corporate veil is pierced) the league owner would be liable. It seems to me that the fraudulent transfer laws would only apply to the assets owned by the AIF"L" itself and AH himself.
So what does the league own? A logo? A trademark? Does the league own any of the turfs on which the teams play?
If, as I suspect (I do not KNOW anything, though) the AIF"L" is an operating shell that owns a few copy machines and telephones (heck, those are probably leased, too) then there wouldn't be anything that the AIF"A" would want to take with them. There might be a philosophical discussion whether the AIF"A" took any AIF"L" "goodwill" (a funny word to use when discussing AH, so it seems from the comments around here), but you can't attach that intangible asset for payment of anything.
So, if the AIF"A" IS in fact a discrete, separate entity from the AIF"L", there should be nothing keeping the new entity from walking away from that debt--provided AH does not have a tie to the new entity that could pierce the new corporate veil.
However, that analysis brings to mind one other thing--if the AIF"A" bought out AH from the AIF"L", as suggested by "The Man, the Myth" before, what is it they were buying?
Michael Val
(who is not a lawyer, but picked up a few things in business law class in college)
Actually the new owners might have created more problems then they resolved. Transferring assets for the purpose of defrauding creditors from lawsuits, or even the threat of a lawsuit is a criminal act,
"A person who...in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;...shall be fined..., imprisoned..., or both."
Thats called JAIL[/quote]
I think it goes back to phydeaux72's comment about ownership structure. If the AIF"L" was owned by AH himself, with the teams merely licensees of the league, then only the league and (after the corporate veil is pierced) the league owner would be liable. It seems to me that the fraudulent transfer laws would only apply to the assets owned by the AIF"L" itself and AH himself.
So what does the league own? A logo? A trademark? Does the league own any of the turfs on which the teams play?
If, as I suspect (I do not KNOW anything, though) the AIF"L" is an operating shell that owns a few copy machines and telephones (heck, those are probably leased, too) then there wouldn't be anything that the AIF"A" would want to take with them. There might be a philosophical discussion whether the AIF"A" took any AIF"L" "goodwill" (a funny word to use when discussing AH, so it seems from the comments around here), but you can't attach that intangible asset for payment of anything.
So, if the AIF"A" IS in fact a discrete, separate entity from the AIF"L", there should be nothing keeping the new entity from walking away from that debt--provided AH does not have a tie to the new entity that could pierce the new corporate veil.
However, that analysis brings to mind one other thing--if the AIF"A" bought out AH from the AIF"L", as suggested by "The Man, the Myth" before, what is it they were buying?
Michael Val
(who is not a lawyer, but picked up a few things in business law class in college)
I'm no attorney either, but the AIFL does have assets in the form of accounts receivable; the monthly league dues that are supposedly paid to the league.
Of course, this speculation only matters if he was indeed "bought out."makes the transfer directly after being sued or threatened with litigation (the boyd lawsuit, among others));
transfers property to a business partner, friend or relative (mink and morris were partners in the aifl));
-
BarbaraPatterson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:37 pm
[quote=""mvhcpa""]I think it goes back to phydeaux72's comment about ownership structure. If the AIF"L" was owned by AH himself, with the teams merely licensees of the league, then only the league and (after the corporate veil is pierced) the league owner would be liable. It seems to me that the fraudulent transfer laws would only apply to the assets owned by the AIF"L" itself and AH himself.
So what does the league own? A logo? A trademark? Does the league own any of the turfs on which the teams play?
If, as I suspect (I do not KNOW anything, though) the AIF"L" is an operating shell that owns a few copy machines and telephones (heck, those are probably leased, too) then there wouldn't be anything that the AIF"A" would want to take with them. There might be a philosophical discussion whether the AIF"A" took any AIF"L" "goodwill" (a funny word to use when discussing AH, so it seems from the comments around here), but you can't attach that intangible asset for payment of anything.
So, if the AIF"A" IS in fact a discrete, separate entity from the AIF"L", there should be nothing keeping the new entity from walking away from that debt--provided AH does not have a tie to the new entity that could pierce the new corporate veil.
However, that analysis brings to mind one other thing--if the AIF"A" bought out AH from the AIF"L", as suggested by "The Man, the Myth" before, what is it they were buying?
Michael Val
(who is not a lawyer, but picked up a few things in business law class in college)[/quote]
You would be correct if..
1) Andrew Haines was not the only owner, and there are numerous examples of Morris and Mink getting involved with the AIFL.
2) The AIFL has $20,000 a month in accounts receivables that were transferred to the AIFA, leaving the AIFL insolvent.
3) The new lawsuits on the way from the referees, and the $450,000 judgment held by Boyd meets the qualifications of having a threat of lawsuit.
4) This is the second time that this has been completed, Andrew Haines was the AIFL beginning of the year, it was only when he was personally sued, that the AIFL became a corporation.
There is way to much of a history here to believe this was an innocent transaction.
As I stated on the NIFL posting, Boyd has been leading up an investigation with the FTC and Congress for the AIFL not complying with franchising laws. I cant believe they would outright do this without settling the debt, giving them even more ammunition to use. Now the Department of Justice can get involved.
Once again, even if there was no intent to defraud, and if there is a settlement with the AIFL creditors signed, the image of corruption continues to loom over the AIFL, and now the AIFA. They should have made public the fact that these settlements have been made so that this can move forward.
So what does the league own? A logo? A trademark? Does the league own any of the turfs on which the teams play?
If, as I suspect (I do not KNOW anything, though) the AIF"L" is an operating shell that owns a few copy machines and telephones (heck, those are probably leased, too) then there wouldn't be anything that the AIF"A" would want to take with them. There might be a philosophical discussion whether the AIF"A" took any AIF"L" "goodwill" (a funny word to use when discussing AH, so it seems from the comments around here), but you can't attach that intangible asset for payment of anything.
So, if the AIF"A" IS in fact a discrete, separate entity from the AIF"L", there should be nothing keeping the new entity from walking away from that debt--provided AH does not have a tie to the new entity that could pierce the new corporate veil.
However, that analysis brings to mind one other thing--if the AIF"A" bought out AH from the AIF"L", as suggested by "The Man, the Myth" before, what is it they were buying?
Michael Val
(who is not a lawyer, but picked up a few things in business law class in college)[/quote]
You would be correct if..
1) Andrew Haines was not the only owner, and there are numerous examples of Morris and Mink getting involved with the AIFL.
2) The AIFL has $20,000 a month in accounts receivables that were transferred to the AIFA, leaving the AIFL insolvent.
3) The new lawsuits on the way from the referees, and the $450,000 judgment held by Boyd meets the qualifications of having a threat of lawsuit.
4) This is the second time that this has been completed, Andrew Haines was the AIFL beginning of the year, it was only when he was personally sued, that the AIFL became a corporation.
There is way to much of a history here to believe this was an innocent transaction.
As I stated on the NIFL posting, Boyd has been leading up an investigation with the FTC and Congress for the AIFL not complying with franchising laws. I cant believe they would outright do this without settling the debt, giving them even more ammunition to use. Now the Department of Justice can get involved.
Once again, even if there was no intent to defraud, and if there is a settlement with the AIFL creditors signed, the image of corruption continues to loom over the AIFL, and now the AIFA. They should have made public the fact that these settlements have been made so that this can move forward.
BP, I think you are right
[quote=""BarbaraPatterson""]You would be correct if..
1) Andrew Haines was not the only owner, and there are numerous examples of Morris and Mink getting involved with the AIFL.
2) The AIFL has $20,000 a month in accounts receivables that were transferred to the AIFA, leaving the AIFL insolvent.
3) The new lawsuits on the way from the referees, and the $450,000 judgment held by Boyd meets the qualifications of having a threat of lawsuit.
4) This is the second time that this has been completed, Andrew Haines was the AIFL beginning of the year, it was only when he was personally sued, that the AIFL became a corporation.
There is way to much of a history here to believe this was an innocent transaction.
As I stated on the NIFL posting, Boyd has been leading up an investigation with the FTC and Congress for the AIFL not complying with franchising laws. I cant believe they would outright do this without settling the debt, giving them even more ammunition to use. Now the Department of Justice can get involved.
Once again, even if there was no intent to defraud, and if there is a settlement with the AIFL creditors signed, the image of corruption continues to loom over the AIFL, and now the AIFA. They should have made public the fact that these settlements have been made so that this can move forward.[/quote]
Those are very good points--I wasn't sure if Mink & Morris had AIF"L" dealings (outside of getting ready to field the Montgomery team for next year) or did everything under the new AIF"A" designation. M&M part of AIFL + M&M part of AIFA = AH's problems might roost at the AIFA.
Also, I did not know that the past year's (or month's) AIF"L" A/R was transferred--to the extent uncollected dues were shifted from the old to the new entity, then those transfer laws PLUS liability to the teams in the new entity (to the extent of the uncollected PAST accounts receivable) comes into play. But I don't think any FUTURE dues paid to be in the AIF"A" can be attached for the AIF"L" debt.
Oh, I never meant to imply that the AIFL-to-A shuffle was an "innocent" transaction--just one that might meet enough legal boundaries to shield the "new" league next year--or at least its consituent teams.
Michael Val
(who DEFINITIVELY showed how much he isn't a lawyer!)
1) Andrew Haines was not the only owner, and there are numerous examples of Morris and Mink getting involved with the AIFL.
2) The AIFL has $20,000 a month in accounts receivables that were transferred to the AIFA, leaving the AIFL insolvent.
3) The new lawsuits on the way from the referees, and the $450,000 judgment held by Boyd meets the qualifications of having a threat of lawsuit.
4) This is the second time that this has been completed, Andrew Haines was the AIFL beginning of the year, it was only when he was personally sued, that the AIFL became a corporation.
There is way to much of a history here to believe this was an innocent transaction.
As I stated on the NIFL posting, Boyd has been leading up an investigation with the FTC and Congress for the AIFL not complying with franchising laws. I cant believe they would outright do this without settling the debt, giving them even more ammunition to use. Now the Department of Justice can get involved.
Once again, even if there was no intent to defraud, and if there is a settlement with the AIFL creditors signed, the image of corruption continues to loom over the AIFL, and now the AIFA. They should have made public the fact that these settlements have been made so that this can move forward.[/quote]
Those are very good points--I wasn't sure if Mink & Morris had AIF"L" dealings (outside of getting ready to field the Montgomery team for next year) or did everything under the new AIF"A" designation. M&M part of AIFL + M&M part of AIFA = AH's problems might roost at the AIFA.
Also, I did not know that the past year's (or month's) AIF"L" A/R was transferred--to the extent uncollected dues were shifted from the old to the new entity, then those transfer laws PLUS liability to the teams in the new entity (to the extent of the uncollected PAST accounts receivable) comes into play. But I don't think any FUTURE dues paid to be in the AIF"A" can be attached for the AIF"L" debt.
Oh, I never meant to imply that the AIFL-to-A shuffle was an "innocent" transaction--just one that might meet enough legal boundaries to shield the "new" league next year--or at least its consituent teams.
Michael Val
(who DEFINITIVELY showed how much he isn't a lawyer!)
-
BarbaraPatterson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:37 pm
[quote=""mvhcpa""]But I don't think any FUTURE dues paid to be in the AIF"A" can be attached for the AIF"L" debt.[/quote]
They absolutely can be attached, this does nothing to benefit those involved for the following reasons.
1) If you dont follow these leagues, but know enough about what team belongs to what league, AIF... is all someone will hear, and the subject of problems will come up. People not law savy dont know or care if its AIFL, AIFA, AIFX, AIFF, all they care is that someone, named AIF... has legal and financial problems.
2) With these leagues being scrutinized so badly, its just one more example of "attempted", or at the very least, appearance of fraud.
3) Creditors of the AIFL can simply go to court to have the transfer voided, or even worse, ask a court to have a trustee appointed until debt is paid. Little chance that a court would not honor this request considering the history behind the original league, the potential sale to GRWW, and a continued effort to hide potential deals.
4) Creditors can simply attach attents of AIFA assets if they are able to prove that the transaction was to an insider, which in this case I believe it was. Whats AIFA going to do then? Create yet another league?
5) If the AIFL didnt want the appearance of fraud, and wanted to really survive, they could have gone into Chapter 13, and negotiated the debt through a bankruptcy court. Why didnt they? Could it because there are accusations of employees using company funds for personal use, and a bankruptcy court would want detailed records? Or could it be the fact that the AIFL has/had $20,000 a month in revenues, and on top of the sales of the individual teams, this league should ahve absolutely no problem at all paying its bills, even a $500,000 judgment. (teams are being advertised for $125,000 each, and even if they are selling for $50,000, there was more then 10 teams sold this year to pay the debt.
6) What possible spin could the AIFA put on this that would make everyone forget the problems of the AIFL, unless the creditors are satisfied?
Its obvious that the AIFL hasnt settled their debt, http://www.BoydVsAIFL.com website is still up. No one would be foolish enough to negotiate payment of a debt, but not have the bad press stopped, or would they?
They absolutely can be attached, this does nothing to benefit those involved for the following reasons.
1) If you dont follow these leagues, but know enough about what team belongs to what league, AIF... is all someone will hear, and the subject of problems will come up. People not law savy dont know or care if its AIFL, AIFA, AIFX, AIFF, all they care is that someone, named AIF... has legal and financial problems.
2) With these leagues being scrutinized so badly, its just one more example of "attempted", or at the very least, appearance of fraud.
3) Creditors of the AIFL can simply go to court to have the transfer voided, or even worse, ask a court to have a trustee appointed until debt is paid. Little chance that a court would not honor this request considering the history behind the original league, the potential sale to GRWW, and a continued effort to hide potential deals.
4) Creditors can simply attach attents of AIFA assets if they are able to prove that the transaction was to an insider, which in this case I believe it was. Whats AIFA going to do then? Create yet another league?
5) If the AIFL didnt want the appearance of fraud, and wanted to really survive, they could have gone into Chapter 13, and negotiated the debt through a bankruptcy court. Why didnt they? Could it because there are accusations of employees using company funds for personal use, and a bankruptcy court would want detailed records? Or could it be the fact that the AIFL has/had $20,000 a month in revenues, and on top of the sales of the individual teams, this league should ahve absolutely no problem at all paying its bills, even a $500,000 judgment. (teams are being advertised for $125,000 each, and even if they are selling for $50,000, there was more then 10 teams sold this year to pay the debt.
6) What possible spin could the AIFA put on this that would make everyone forget the problems of the AIFL, unless the creditors are satisfied?
Its obvious that the AIFL hasnt settled their debt, http://www.BoydVsAIFL.com website is still up. No one would be foolish enough to negotiate payment of a debt, but not have the bad press stopped, or would they?
