Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc.
699 F.3d 848
5th Cir.2012Background
- Ralph Janvey was appointed Receiver over the Stanford Defendants’ assets after the SEC’s suit alleging a large Ponzi scheme.
- The district court authorized the Receiver to collect and pursue claims to recover assets traceable to the Receivership Estate.
- The Receiver filed February 19, 2010 a TUFTA action seeking approximately $1.6 million in political contributions made by the Stanford Defendants to several committees.
- The contributions were distributed among five committees: DSCC, DCCC, NRCC, NRNC, and NRSC, with specific amounts totaling about $1.6 million.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Receiver, ruling the Receiver could stand in the creditors’ shoes and that the TUFTA claims were timely; it also held federal campaign finance law did not preempt the TUFTA claims.
- The Committees appealed, challenging standing, timeliness under TUFTA, and preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Receiver may stand in the creditors’ shoes for TUFTA claims | Janvey for receivership authority over creditors. | Committees contend Receiver lacks creditor-standing. | Receiver may pursue TUFTA claims on behalf of creditors. |
| Whether the TUFTA claims were filed within the one-year discovery period | Receiver acted within one year after discovery of transfers. | Discovery rule not satisfied; timely defenses should apply. | Claims brought within one year after transfers could have been discovered; timely. |
| Whether federal campaign finance law preempts the TUFTA claims | FECA/BCRA do not preempt state TUFTA claims in this creditor-recovery context. | FECA preempts or conflicts with TUFTA claims. | Preemption does not apply; TUFTA not preempted. |
| Whether the district court abused discovery rulings related to privileged materials | Not applicable; merits focus on standing, timeliness, preemption. | District court erred in discovery handling. | Issue not preserved for appeal; no reversible error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 666 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2012) (receiver represents creditors under Texas law)
- Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011) (superseded I; receiver authority discussed)
- Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, 39 F.3d 1273 (5th Cir. 1994) (FECA preemption narrowly construed; state law applicable)
- Cadle Co. v., 136 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. App.—Tex. 2003) (statute of limitations discovery rule applied; Texas approach)
- Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008) (claims may arise long after funds are spent; permissible)
- Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 666 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2012) (receiver authority; related to standing)