Ralph Janvey v. Golf Channel, Incorporated, 780 F.3d 641

Stanford International Bank operated a multi‑billion‑dollar Ponzi scheme and raised over $7 billion selling fraudulent CDs.
From 2006–renewal years, Stanford paid The Golf Channel about $5.9 million for advertising and event‑sponsorship services tied to golf broadcasts.
The SEC sued; a federal court appointed Ralph Janvey as receiver to recover voidable transfers for the benefit of Stanford’s creditors.
Receiver sued under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) to recover the $5.9 million paid to Golf Channel.
The district court found the transfers fraudulent but granted summary judgment to Golf Channel on its affirmative defense that it received the transfers in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Golf Channel proved the advertising provided “reasonably equivalent value” from the creditors’ standpoint and reversed, awarding judgment to the receiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Receiver)	Defendant's Argument (Golf Channel)	Held
Whether the $5.9M paid to Golf Channel constituted "reasonably equivalent value" under TUFTA	Ads served no value to creditors because they furthered a Ponzi scheme and therefore did not preserve estate value	The payments reflect market value of legitimate advertising services; Golf Channel acted in good faith as a trade creditor	The court held Golf Channel failed to prove value to creditors; advertising that furthers a Ponzi scheme provides no value as a matter of law
Whether a trade‑creditor or market value defense creates an exception for ordinary commercial services	Receiver: No special rule; TUFTA measures value from creditors’ perspective and has no trade‑creditor exception	Golf Channel: Should be treated like an innocent trade creditor entitled to market‑value defense	Court rejected an exception for trade creditors; value must be measured from creditors’ perspective and services that extend a Ponzi scheme have no creditor value

Janvey v. Brown, 767 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2014) (Ponzi‑scheme transfers establish fraudulent intent under TUFTA)
Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (services that further a Ponzi scheme have no value as a matter of law)
Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., Inc., 712 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2013) (describing Ponzi scheme insolvency from inception)
Matter of Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 6 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1993) (value may include speculative expected benefits in legitimate contexts)
In re Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 444 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2006) (threshold question whether any value was received is for the court)
Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1995) (payments in a Ponzi scheme do not represent legitimate value to creditors)