Scarver v. Patel (In re Haven Trust Bancorp, Inc.), 461 B.R. 910

Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Haven Trust Bancorp insiders seeking recovery for constructive fraudulent transfers, illegal distributions, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
Debtor is the holding company of Haven Trust Bank, an FDIC-insured institution; the FDIC served as receiver and the bank closed shortly before the debtor's Chapter 7 filing.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues identified include insolvency pleading under 11 U.S.C. § 544 and O.C.G.A. § 18-2-75(a) or § 548(a)(1)(B), dismissal with prejudice, and relation back if amended.
The court held jurisdiction as core under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2) and 1334(b); Rule 8 pleading standard governs, not Rule 9.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, allowed 14 days for Defendants to answer, and noted that three originally named defendants were dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plausibility of insolvency at the time of transfers	Trustee pleads insolvency as an ultimate fact supported by transfers pre-dating bankruptcy.	Insolvency is not adequately pleaded with factual support.	Insolvency adequately pleaded; claims plausibly pled.
Sufficiency of constructive fraudulent transfer and related breach claims	Factual allegations show transfers were likely avoidable and connected to insolvency.	Complaint lacks concrete facts to meet plausibility standard.	Counts are plausible; dismissal denied.
Unjust enrichment claim viability	Alternative pleading permitted; unjust enrichment remains despite possible legal remedy.	Adequate remedy at law defeats unjust enrichment claim.	Unjust enrichment claim survives.
Pleading standard applicable to constructive fraudulent transfers	8(a) pleading standard applies; is sufficient to plead plausible claims.	Rule 9(b) heightened standard should apply.	Rule 8(a) pleading standard applies; not Rule 9(b).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings; not mere conclusory statements)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requires plausible, not merely possible, claims)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (notice-pleading sufficiency; fair notice of claims)
In re Saba Enters., Inc., 421 B.R. 626 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (insolvency inferences from post-transfer petition)
Charys Liquidating Trust v. McMahan Sec. Co., L.P. (In re Charys Holding Co.), 443 B.R. 628 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (constructive fraudulent conveyance pleading standards)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957) (short-hand pleading standard later refined by Iqbal and Twombly)