Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff,
-v-
Yale University
Defendant.
liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at
100 Crescent Court, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75201, and the Court-appointed Trustee for the
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, with its principal place of business in New Haven,
Connecticut 06520.
A/73299965.8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding under chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 151, 157 and 1334, and under Article XI of the Plan.
4. The Plaintiff commences this adversary proceeding pursuant to rule 7001, et seq.
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) and sections 544, 547,
5. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409 because
this adversary proceeding arises under and in connection with a case pending in this district
BACKGROUND
7. Plaintiff has succeeded to the causes of action asserted in this Complaint, and is
8. On December 22, 2009, this Court entered an order (the “Confirmation Order”)
confirming the Debtors’ Modified Second Amended Joint Plan Under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, dated December 17, 2009 (the “Plan”). The Plan became effective on
9. The Liquidating Trust has the right to prosecute “any and all Causes of Action,
including, but not limited to, any and all avoidance . . . actions, recovery causes of action and
objections to Claims.” Confirmation Order ¶ 37; Plan §§ 5.7(g), 10.9; Liquidating Trust
Agreement ¶ 6.1(b)((iv). All Causes of Action were retained by the Liquidating Trust.
Confirmation Order ¶¶ GGG, 37. The Trustee was appointed pursuant to the Confirmation
Order.
A/73299965.8 2
The Collaboration Agreement
(“BearingPoint”) and Yale entered into that certain Educational Collaboration Agreement dated
November 28, 2006 (the “Education Collaboration Agreement”). The parties entered into that
certain First Amendment to the Education Collaboration Agreement dated as of February 27,
2008 (the “First Collaboration Agreement Amendment”). The parties entered into that Second
Amendment to the Education Collaboration Agreement dated as of November 12, 2008, (the
“Second Collaboration Agreement Amendment”, and together with the Education Collaboration
Agreement”). 1 The Court authorized the rejection of the Collaboration Agreement by order
Yale scheduled multiple sessions for employee training and education programs for 2008.
12. Payment terms for sessions covered under the First Collaboration Agreement
Amendment during (a) the first quarter of 2008 were net 15 days and (b) the second, third and
13. Upon information and belief, during the fourth quarter of 2008, including during
the ninety (90) day period (the “Preference Period”) prior to February 18, 2009 (the “Petition
Date”), despite the payment terms set forth under the First Collaboration Agreement
Amendment, Yale billed BearingPoint for 50% of the cost of each program in advance prior to
the start date of such programs and for the remaining 50% balance after completion of such
1
A copy of the Collaboration Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
A/73299965.8 3
14. Pursuant to the Second Collaboration Agreement Amendment, BearingPoint and
Yale scheduled multiple leadership skills workshops and training programs for 2009.
15. Under the Second Collaboration Agreement Amendment, 50% of the cost of each
individual program was due in advance (the day prior to the scheduled program start date), with
the balance due ninety (90) days after completion of each such program.
16. Upon information and belief, the 50% advance payments under the Second
Collaboration Agreement Amendment were made late, and the payments for the 50% remaining
balance were made far earlier than required under the Second Collaboration Agreement
17. Upon information and belief, there was no ordinary course of business governing
the date on which Yale issued its invoices for the cost of the programs during the Preference
Period.
18. Upon information and belief, each of the payments set forth on Exhibit B was
19. For example, on October 20, 2008, Yale issued four invoices unto BearingPoint
under the Altered 2008 Payment Terms: (a) the first invoice covered the 50% balance of the cost
of a program completed in or around September 28, 2008, (b) the second invoice covered the
50% balance of the cost of a program completed in or around October 12, 2008, (c) the third
invoice covered the 50% advance payment for a program scheduled to begin on or around
November 16, 2008, and (d) the fourth invoice covered the 50% advance payment for a program
scheduled to begin on or around December 7, 2008. BearingPoint paid each of the four October
A/73299965.8 4
The Commitment Agreement
20. Prior to the Petition Date, BearingPoint and Yale entered into that certain
Commitment Agreement dated as of November 28, 2006. The parties entered into that certain
Amendment 1 to the Commitment Agreement dated as of June 21, 2007 (the “First Commitment
Agreement Amendment,” and together with the Commitment Agreement, the “Commitment
Agreement”). 2
Yale to be paid over a seven year period beginning in the first quarter of 2007 and Yale provided
22. Pursuant to the Commitment Agreement, the first $2 million paid by BearingPoint
commitment and satisfied the conditions thereunder, Yale provided BearingPoint certain naming
opportunities including the naming of a hall, and a wing and auditorium in a new building at
Yale. If BearingPoint failed timely and fully to fund the commitment in accordance with the
schedule set forth in the First Commitment Agreement Amendment, Yale would, in its
discretion, withdraw the BearingPoint name from any building or portion thereof.
or assets was derived from the endowing of chairs or the naming of buildings at Yale.
2
A copy of the Commitment Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
A/73299965.8 5
COUNT I
25. The Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1
26. The Plaintiff has attached hereto and incorporates by reference Exhibit B, which
is a schedule of transfers made to the Defendant on or within the Preference Period pursuant to
the Collaboration Agreement (the aggregate amount of such transfers of property of $2,072,774
is referred to herein as the “Preference Transfers”) by one or more of the Debtors (the “Transfer
Debtor(s)”).
27. The Preference Transfers were transfers of an interest in property of one or more
28. The Preference Transfers were made to or for the benefit of the Defendant, a
29. The Preference Transfers were made for or on account of an antecedent debt
owed by one or more of the Transfer Debtor(s) to the Defendant before the Preference Transfers
were made.
30. Upon information and belief, the Preference Transfers were made while one or
31. The Preference Transfers were made on or within the Preference Period.
32. Upon information and belief, the Preference Transfers enabled the Defendant to
receive more than the Defendant would have received if (a) the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases were
cases under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, (b) the Preference Transfers had not been made,
A/73299965.8 6
and (c) the Defendant had received the Preference Transfers to the extent provided by the
Bankruptcy Code.
preferences, and the Plaintiff is entitled to an order and judgment avoiding the Preference
COUNT II
34. The Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
35. The Plaintiff has attached hereto and incorporates by reference Exhibit D, which
is a schedule of transfers made to the Defendant on or within two years prior to the Petition Date
pursuant to the Commitment Agreement (the aggregate amount of such transfers of property of
$6,000,000 is referred to herein as the “Fraudulent Transfers”) by one or more of the Transfer
Debtors. The Fraudulent Transfers were transfers of an interest in property of one or more of the
Transfer Debtor(s).
36. The Fraudulent Transfers were transfers of an interest in property of one or more
37. The Defendant received the Fraudulent Transfers on or within two years prior to
38. The Transfer Debtor(s) received less than reasonably equivalent value in
39. Upon information and belief, the Transfer Debtor(s) (i) was or were insolvent on
the date(s) the Fraudulent Transfers were made, (ii) was or were engaged in business or a
A/73299965.8 7
transaction, or was or were about to engage in such business or a transaction, for which any
property remaining with the Transfer Debtor(s) was an unreasonably small capital, or
(iii) intended to incur, or believed each would incur, debts that would be beyond the ability of the
fraudulent transfers, and the Plaintiff is entitled to an order and judgment avoiding the
COUNT III
41. The Plaintiff re-alleges and reasserts the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 24 and 34 through 40, as if fully set forth herein and, in the alternative, pleads as
follows:
42. The Plaintiff has attached hereto and incorporates by reference Exhibit D, which
is a schedule of transfers made to the Defendant. It has been (a) approximately thirty-four (34)
months since the Defendant received the first Fraudulent Transfer on or about May 1, 2007,
(b) approximately thirty (30) months since the Defendant received the second Fraudulent
Transfer on or about August 29, 2007, and (c) approximately twenty-three (23) months since the
Defendant received the third Fraudulent Transfer on or about April 1, 2008, which Fraudulent
Transfers were made by one or more of the Transfer Debtor(s). The aggregate amount of the
43. The Fraudulent Transfers were transfers of an interest in property of one or more
A/73299965.8 8
44. The Transfer Debtor(s) received less than reasonably equivalent value in
45. Upon information and belief, the Transfer Debtor(s) (i) was or were insolvent on
the date(s) the Fraudulent Transfers were made, (ii) was or were engaged in business or a
transaction, or was or were about to engage in such business or a transaction, for which any
property remaining with the Transfer Debtor(s) was an unreasonably small capital, or
(iii) intended to incur, or believed each would incur, debts that would be beyond the ability of the
fraudulent conveyances, and the Plaintiff is entitled to an order and judgment avoiding the
Transfers pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and section § 273 of the New York
COUNT IV
47. The Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
48. The Defendant is the initial transferee of the Preference Transfers and Fraudulent
Transfers, or the entity for whose benefit the Preference Transfers and Fraudulent Transfers were
made, or the immediate or mediate transferee of the initial transferee receiving such Preference
49. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and by reason of the
foregoing, once the Preference Transfers and Fraudulent Transfers are avoided, the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover the Preference Transfers and Fraudulent Transfers plus interest.
A/73299965.8 9
COUNT V
OBJECTION TO CLAIM
50. The Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
51. The Defendant has filed claim number 907, amending and superseding claim
number 683.
52. Claim number 683 should be disallowed and expunged because it was amended
53. Pursuant to section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court shall disallow any
claim of the Defendants because property is recoverable from the Defendants under sections 542,
543, 550, or 553 of title 11, or that is a transferee of a transfer avoidable under sections 522(f),
522(h), 544, 545, 547, 548, 549 or 724(a) of title 11, unless the Defendant pays the amount
recoverable.
54. Until such time as the Defendant returns the Preference Transfers and Fraudulent
Transfers to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s claims, whether previously or subsequently scheduled,
filed or otherwise asserted or paid in the Debtors’ chapter 11 estates, should be disallowed in
their entirety.
55. In addition, the Defendant’s claims should be disallowed in their entirety because
no consideration or other economic benefit of any monetary value has been provided to the
56. The Plaintiff reserves all other defenses, including defenses on the merits, as may
be available against the Defendant’s claims, and this complaint shall not constitute a waiver of
the same.
A/73299965.8 10
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
57. The Plaintiff hereby specifically reserves the right to bring any and all other
causes of action that it may maintain against the Defendant, including, without limitation,
(a) causes of action arising out of the same transaction(s) set forth herein, and (b) other bases for
objection to Yale’s proofs of claim, to the extent discovery in this action or further investigation
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for a judgment granting the relief against the
superseded.
claim numbers 683 and 907, (i) until it turns over any Preference Transfers and
Fraudulent Transfers to the Plaintiff, pursuant to section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code
and/or (ii) for failure to provide consideration or economic benefit to the estates.
A/73299965.8 11
g. An award of the costs of the suit herein.
h. An award of such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
-and-
Jeffrey S. Sabin
jeffrey.sabin@bingham.com
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 705-7000
Facsimile: (212) 752-5378
A/73299965.8 12
Exhibit A
Collaboration Agreement
A/73299965.8
Exhibit B
Preference Transfers
12/04/2008 $486,312
12/04/2008 $170,341
12/04/2008 $163,817
01/05/2009 $16,244
01/08/2009 $243,156
01/08/2009 $6,212
01/23/2009 $243,156
01/23/2009 $366,768
01/30/2009 $10,000
02/12/2009 $366,768
TOTAL $2,072,774
A/73299965.8
Exhibit C
Commitment Agreement
A/73299965.8
Exhibit D
Fraudulent Transfers
5/1/2007 $2,000,000
8/29/2007 $2,000,000
4/1/2008 $2,000,000
TOTAL $6,000,000
A/73299965.8