On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.
Two recent Federal appeals court decisions — one issued by the Fifth, the other by the Second Circuit — illustrate the dangers of careless drafting of bankruptcy and reorganization plans. In the Fifth Circuit decision, a drafting error prevented a company reorganized under Chapter 11 from suing the administrators of its property during its bankruptcy for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, thereby potentially depriving its creditors of bankruptcy assets.
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.
On Thursday, August 6, 2009, the United States Senate confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. As a former Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor’s jurisprudence includes a number of decisions involving noteworthy bankruptcy cases. This article provides a brief survey of these decisions.
On November 13, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the Stanford securities fraud case that the appointed receiver lacked authority to “claw back” principal and interest proceeds distributed to innocent investors/creditors because they have a legitimate ownership interest in the proceeds held in the accounts. This precedent has important implications for this and other ongoing “Ponzi” scheme cases.
The Stanford Case: Alleged Multi-Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme
In RGH Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2011 WL 2471542 (N.Y.
The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes. The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has granted another preliminary injunction ordering an excess directors and officers liability insurer to advance defense costs, despite the fact that the insurer had denied coverage on the basis of a prior knowledge exclusion and three of the insured entity's principals have pled guilty to various offenses, including violations of the securities laws. Murphy v. Allied World Assurance Co. (U.S.), Inc. (In re Refco, Inc.), No. 08-01133 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2008).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary injunctions ordering a directors and officers liability insurer to advance defense costs, despite the fact that the insurer had denied coverage, and without adjudicating the coverage defense. Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Bennett et al., Adv. No. 07-01712 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Aug. 31, 2007); Grant v. Axis Reinsurance Co., Adv. No. 07-2005 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Sep. 11, 2007). The bankruptcy court applied New York law and relied heavily on the case In re WorldCom, Inc.