On June 28, 2011, the Second Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) shields from avoidance in bankruptcy cases an issuer's payments to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity. See Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de CV, Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. ALFA, S.A.B. de C.V., Nos. 09-5122-bk(L), 09-5142-bk (Con), 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13177 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011). The decision marks the first time an appeals court has considered whether redemption payments constitute "settlement payments" under section 546(e).
In a decision that was not surprising but nevertheless disappointing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court concluding that the “net equity” calculation for distributions back to Madoff victims should be based on the Net Investment Method, the total of actual deposits and withdrawals, and not the last statement amount listed on the final brokerage account statement. As a result, claw back law suits against the inaptly named “net winners” are sure to continue unabated.
Background
Following the Second Circuit’s recent precedent in an Enron appeal (also the subject of a Basis Points blog post), Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that the redemption of notes prior to maturity was exempt from preference actions under the safe harbor provision of Bankruptcy Code § 546(e). Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., No. 08-10152 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2011).
In a decision likely to affect thousands of Madoff investors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16, 2011 unanimously upheld the method used by the liquidating trustee for Bernard L.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found in favor of the trustee (the Trustee) presiding over the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BMIS), affirming the Trustee’s calculation of “net equity” in the BMIS liquidation. The Trustee calculates net equity to determine the value of claims submitted by victims of Madoff’s massive fraud.
CURRENTLY, NEGOTIATION and documentation of claims trades remain largely unregulated, with only limited oversight from bankruptcy courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Generally, the bankruptcy court’s, or the claims agent’s, involvement in claims trading is ministerial, i.e., maintaining the claims register and recording transfers if the form complies with the rule. Only if there is an objection to a claims transfer does the bankruptcy court become involved in the substance of a transfer.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”), entered an order on Aug.
In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re American Home Mortg. Holdings, Inc., 637 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2011), held that, for purposes of section 562 of the Bankruptcy Code, a discounted cash flow analysis was a “commercially reasonable determinant” of value for the liquidation of mortgage loans in a repurchase transaction.
The arrival of private equity and hedge funds into the US restructuring and insolvency markets is last year’s news. How these funds are transforming the restructuring markets in the United States and exporting these transformations to Europe is what’s of interest now. Keen on making higher and higher profits in a low interest rate environment, funds are directing vast amounts of their liquidity into purchasing and trading distressed bond debt, bank debt and trade debt in restructurings and in insolvency proceedings in the United States.
The latest in a line of fraudulent transfer decisions in the Madoff case has added to the case-law regarding what level of knowledge is needed to plead actual fraud in securities Ponzi scheme cases.