A recent bankruptcy court decision in the Southern District of New York may raise concern among brokerage firms who execute and clear brokerage transactions for hedge funds and similar investment vehicles. The bankruptcy trustee of the Manhattan Investment Fund (which the court found to be a Ponzi scheme and whose principal Michael Berger pled guilty to criminal charges) obtained summary judgment against Bear Stearns requiring it to return to the bankruptcy estate all the margin payments the fund had made in the year before it imploded, totaling $141.4 million.

The US Court of Appeals recently decided in In re Tribune Co Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation(1) that Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code(2) impliedly pre-empts state fraudulent conveyance laws that creditors might otherwise use to unwind payments made by a corporate debtor to public shareholders in a pre-bankruptcy leveraged buy-out.

In a March 29, 2016 decision,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") held that creditors are preempted from asserting state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbors" that, among other things, exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security (here, in the context of a leveraged buyout ("LBO")), from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for distribution to creditors.

On January 1, 2016, Kentucky joined a growing movement among states across the country to revise fraudulent transfer statutes. Kentucky accomplished this by repealing its statutes on fraudulent transfers and preferential transfers (KRS 378.010 et seq.), and replacing them with the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”) (KRS 378A.005 et seq.). The UVTA was designed to replace the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) that was previously adopted by 43 other states (which did not include Kentucky).

Today, the Second Circuit reissued the latest in a line of cases adopting an expansive reading of the safe harbor under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., Case 13-3992, Doc. 356-1 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2016). (This opinion was originally issued on March 24 and withdrawn on March 28. The opinion released today contains minor, non-substantive alterations to the text on pages 8, 22, 26, and 40. In all other respects, it is identical to the opinion withdrawn last week).

A bankruptcy court’s characterization of a debtor’s pre-petition conveyance of an overriding royalty interest (“ORRI”) has an important effect on whether that ORRI is part of an oil and gas debtor’s bankruptcy estate and, in turn, what rights the ORRI holder has with respect to that interest. If an ORRI conveyance is characterized as the transfer of a real property interest, the conveyance is generally excluded from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate and the ORRI holder’s interest may not be affected by the bankruptcy.

In a recent opinion,1 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York emphasized that foreign confidentiality statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence — even though the act of production may be considered a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdiction and subject the party to serious consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

Background

With the country officially in a recession and the lack of available refinancing options continuing, more and more businesses are faced with the realities of foreclosure. While foreclosure often allows a business to wipe the debt slate clean with respect to the foreclosed property, it can also create unintended tax consequences as well as tax planning opportunities.  

Recourse v. Non-Recourse Debt  

On December 10, 2008, Bernard Madoff confessed to his two sons that he had been running what amounted to a massive Ponzi scheme on the scale of approximately $50 billion and that he could no longer sustain it due to, among other things, substantial redemption requests. That night, his sons alerted authorities.  

This alert has been prompted by a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals that has a potentially huge impact on the treatment under U.S. bankruptcy law of contracts that entail a physical delivery of commodities. The decision is a positive development for those that had entered into a physically settled transaction with an entity which has subsequently become subject to a U.S. bankruptcy procedure as such transactions may qualify as a "swap agreement" and therefore fall within the "safe harbor" provisions of the U.S.