Amborn v. Golchin

Page 1 – MEMORANDUM DECISION FOR DEFENDANT
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
In re
Shahram Shane Samy,
Debtor.
Case No. 24-61455-dwh7
Adversary Proceeding
No. 25-06015-dwh
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FOR DEFENDANT1
Candace Amborn, trustee,
Plaintiff,
v.
Marjan Golchin,
Defendant.
I. Introduction
In this action, the chapter 7 trustee, Candace Amborn, seeks to avoid
and recover a payment to Marjan Golchin.
1 This disposition is specific to this action. It may be cited for whatever
persuasive value it may have.
Below is an opinion of the court.
_______________________________________
DAVID W. HERCHER
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
DISTRICT OF OREGON
F I L E D
July 07, 2026
Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Case 25-06015-dwh Doc 32 Filed 07/07/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 – MEMORANDUM DECISION FOR DEFENDANT
Because the transfer was not by debtor, I will enter judgment for
Golchin.
II. Findings of fact
The parties filed a joint statement of agreed facts.2 At trial, Exhibits 1
through 8 and 11 were admitted.3 Exhibits 94 and 105 were admitted for the
fact that they were issued or entered by the state circuit court but not for the
truth of the fact statements in them. All but a specified portion of a set of
excerpts from depositions of debtor, Shahram Shane Samy, to which Golchin
objected, were admitted.6 I heard testimony from Samaneh Samy, debtor’s
former wife. Because the Samys share a last name, I will refer to them as
Shane and Samaneh.
Shane and his uncle, Mohammed H. Sadeghi,7 whom the parties call
Moe, were the members of an Oregon limited-liability company called Asan
Investments, LLC.8 In 2012, Moe wanted to divest himself from the business,
so he agreed that Shane would take over Moe’s equity interest in Asan, and
some amount of money would be paid in exchange. In his deposition, Shane
testified that the agreed amount to be paid to Moe was $280,000.9 The parties
2 ECF No. 28.
3 ECF Nos. 26-1 – 26-8.
4 ECF No. 26-9.
5 ECF No. 26-10.
6 ECF No. 29.
7 Ex. 2, ECF No. 26-2, at 1.
8 Ex. 1, ECF No. 26-1, at 1 ¶ A; Ex. 2, ECF No. 26-2, at 1 ¶ A.
9 ECF No. 29 at 3, reference to 21:8–22:8.
Case 25-06015-dwh Doc 32 Filed 07/07/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 – MEMORANDUM DECISION FOR DEFENDANT
disagree about both whether the agreed price was that much and whether the
party who agreed to make the payment was Asan or Shane. For reasons I will
explain, I need not decide either question.
Moe died in 2022. Shane was then in the middle of an apparently
acrimonious divorce action filed by Samaneh, his then-wife. Golchin, who is
Shane’s aunt and was Moe’s wife, asked Shane to pay her the money that was
owed to Moe at the time of his death. In March 2022, $280,000 was wire-
transferred from Asan’s credit-union account to Golchin.
Shane filed his chapter 7 petition in June 2024. Amborn was appointed
trustee.10
III. Jurisdiction and authority
The district court has jurisdiction over this action, which is a civil
proceeding arising under title 11 of the United States Code.11 The district
court has referred to this court all bankruptcy cases and proceedings in this
district.12 The action is a core proceeding,13 which this court may hear and
determine.14
IV. Analysis
At trial, Amborn’s theory of avoidance was that the transfer is
avoidable under the combined effect of 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Oregon Revised
10 Case No. 24-61455.
11 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).
12 LR 2100-1.
13 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F), (H).
14 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).
Case 25-06015-dwh Doc 32 Filed 07/07/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 – MEMORANDUM DECISION FOR DEFENDANT
Statutes chapter 95. Although her lawyer also mentioned the elements of
section 548, he conceded that the transfer was outside the two-year limitation
period under that section.15
Section 544(b) allows the trustee to “avoid any transfer of an interest of
the debtor in property . . . that is voidable under applicable law by a creditor
holding an unsecured claim that is allowable under section 502 of this title
. . ..” Because section 544(b) permits the avoidance of a transfer only of
property of the debtor, Amborn must show that the transfer she wishes to
avoid was of property of Shane.
Golchin argues that the payment she received was a wire transfer from
a credit union account in Asan’s name and thus was literally property of
Asan, rather than of Shane. Amborn does not dispute that fact, but she
argues that Shane was Asan’s sole member and caused the transfer from
Asan either to pay a debt of Shane or as a gift, and the transfer reduced the
value of Shane’s membership interest in Asan, effectively transferring a
property interest of Shane.
The determination of property interests in bankruptcy is “generally
left . . . to state law.”16 When a federal court must determine which state’s law
applies to an issue governed by state law, the court applies the choice-of-law
rules of the forum state.17 Because this court sits in Oregon, it applies
15 See 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1).
16 Butner v. U.S., 440 U.S. 48, 54 (1979).
17 Kohlrautz v. Oilmen Participation Corp., 441 F.3d 827, 833 (9th Cir. 2006).
Case 25-06015-dwh Doc 32 Filed 07/07/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 – MEMORANDUM DECISION FOR DEFENDANT
Oregon’s choice-of-law rules. Under Oregon Revised Statutes § 15.430(2), if
no party raises the issue of applicability of foreign law to a noncontractual
claim, the applicable law is that of Oregon.18 By contrasting Oregon law with
foreign law, that statute implies that the legislature meant “foreign law” to be
law other than that of Oregon, including the law of other states, not just that
of foreign countries. Here, neither party has argued that the law of a state
other than Oregon governs the issues in this action—particularly whether
Shane has an interest in property of Asan.
Under Oregon law under which Asan was formed, an LLC member “is
not a co-owner of and has no interest in specific limited liability company
property.”19 An LLC may have a single member,20 and the LLC statutes
“make no distinction between single and multiple member LLCs for the
purposes of . . . ownership.”21
Shane’s ownership of his membership interest in Asan does not mean
he owned Asan’s assets, and Golchin did not receive any part of Shane’s
membership interest. Even if Asan’s payment reduced the value of the
membership interest, the transfer was of property of Asan, not of Shane.
Amborn does not demonstrate how reduction in the value of the membership
18 Or. Rev. Stat. § 15.430(2).
19 Or. Rev. Stat. § 63.239.
20 Or. Rev. Stat. § 63.044.
21 Benson Apts. LLC v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 040518C, 2005 Or.
Tax LEXIS 156, at *6 n.2 (Or. Tax Ct. Jul. 27, 2005).
Case 25-06015-dwh Doc 32 Filed 07/07/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 – MEMORANDUM DECISION FOR DEFENDANT
interest, if proved, would fit within any recognized exception to Oregon’s rule
that an LLC member has no interest in specific LLC property.
Because the money transferred to Golchin belonged not to Shane but
instead to Asan, the transfer cannot be avoided. I need not address the other
elements of Amborn’s claims or any of Golchin’s defenses.
V. Conclusion
I will enter judgment for Golchin.
# # #
Case 25-06015-dwh Doc 32 Filed 07/07/26 Page 6 of 6