Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Certain Winning Investors - Case 4:18-cv-359 - Motion filed 02/13/19

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Aran

Court filing by Receiver Jennifer Ecklund, as court-appointed receiver for the Bryant Defendants and Wammel Defendants, seeking summary judgment against certain winning investors. The motion argues that transfers made to the certain winning investors constitute actual fraudulent transfers under Texas Business & Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1) and should be returned to the receivership estate. It further asserts constructive fraudulent transfers, unjust enrichment, entitlement to a constructive trust, and timeliness within the limitations period.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages345

Reading Time2 h 1 min

AccessFree to download

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT

SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

CONCLUSION

Case 4:18-cv-00359-ALM Document 55 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 31 PageID \#: 638 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION JENNIFER ECKLUND, RECEIVER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT AND SANDRA BAILEY, et al., Defendants. §§ §§ § Ancillary Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-359 § §§ § RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN WINNING INVESTORS Plaintiff Jennifer Ecklund, in her capacity as the Court-appointed Receiver (the“Receiver”) for Defendants Thurman P. Bryant, III (“Bryant”) and Bryant United Capital Funding, Inc. (“BUCF”) (Bryant and BUCF, collectively, the “Bryant Defendants”) and Defendant Arthur F. Wammel (“Wammel”), Defendant Wammel Group, LLC (the “Wammel Group”), and Wammel Group Holdings Partnership (“WGHP”) (together Wammel, Wammel Group, and WGHP, the “Wammel Defendants”) receivership estates (together, the“Receivership Estate” or the “Receivership”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion for Summary Judgment Against Certain Winning Investors (the “Motion”) and respectfully shows the following: Case 4:18-cv-00359-ALM Document 55 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 31 PageID \#: 639 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT............................4 III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE .............................................................................5 IV. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................6 V. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ...........................................................................7 VI. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES..................................................................................8 A. The Bryant Defendants and Wammel Defendants’ Transfers to the Certain Winning Investors constitute Actual Fraudulent Transfers under TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 24.005(a)(1) and the Transfers should be returned to the Receivership Estate........................................................................................... 8 1. The Transfers by the Bryant Defendants and Wammel Defendants to the Certain Winning Investors were in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme......................................................................................................... 9 2. The Certain Winning Investors collectively received over $1.3 million in fraudulent Transfers from the Bryant Defendants and Wammel Defendants................................................................................. 13 a. Evidence of the Transfers to Robert and Sandra Bailey.................. 13 b. Evidence of the Transfers to Roland and Holly Maldonado........... 14 c. Evidence of Transfers to Hossein Seddighi..................................... 14 d. Evidence of Transfers to Kenneth and Chelsea Hughes.................. 15 e. Evidence of Transfers to Teresa Ezell............................................. 16 f. Evidence of Transfers to Blair Knapp............................................. 16 g. Evidence of Transfers to Stephen Garrett........................................ 17 3. The Certain Winning Investors provided no reasonably equivalent value for the Transfers.............................................................................. 18 a. The Certain Winning Investors provided no reasonably equivalent value............................................................................... 18 B. The Bryant Defendants and Wammel Defendants’ Transfers to the Certain Winning Investors constitute Constructive Fraudulent Transfers under TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE § 24.005(a)(2) because there was no reasonably equivalent value exchanged and BUCF and the Wammel Group were insolvent from their inception............................................................................... 19 Case 4:18-cv-00359-ALM D

FAQs

What relief does the Receiver seek against the certain winning investors?

The Receiver seeks summary judgment against the certain winning investors and asks that the fraudulent transfers be returned to the receivership estate, along with related equitable relief such as a constructive trust.

Why does the motion characterize the transfers as actual fraudulent transfers?

The motion contends the transfers were made in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme and that the certain winning investors received over $1.3 million in fraudulent transfers without providing reasonably equivalent value.

What alternative grounds are asserted besides actual fraudulent transfers?

The motion also argues constructive fraudulent transfers due to lack of reasonably equivalent value and insolvency from inception, and it asserts unjust enrichment and entitlement to a constructive trust, brought within the limitations period.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Aran