Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.

In a partial reversal of a decision from Bayou Group LLC's bankruptcy case, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York reconsidered a controversial ruling that sent shivers down the spines of institutional investors in 2008. See In re Bayou Group , LLC, No. 09 Civ. 02577 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2010).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of a complaint brought by Rosenman Family, LLC, an investor with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), against the trustee of BLMIS’s estate. The complaint alleged that Rosenman was entitled to a return of $10 million it wired to BLMIS, because, Rosenman argued, the funds were stolen or embezzled by BLMIS and thus never became BLMIS’s property and/or part of BLMIS’s bankruptcy estate.

In a much-followed case given the recent publicity surrounding collapsed Ponzi schemes, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 17, 2010 reversed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court from the Southern District of New York that had broadened the scope of those facts and circumstances that may trigger inquiry notice under the "good faith" defense to a fraudulent conveyance claim. In re Bayou Group, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99590 (S.D.N.Y. September 17, 2010).

Associated Community Bancorp, Inc. v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34799 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2010)

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. The right examiner, with a clearly defined mission, will have a major influence on the bankruptcy process. The difference between a successful financial restructuring or liquidation-resulting in substantial recoveries for the key constituencies-and a time-consuming (and asset-consuming) meltdown, can depend on the approach of the examiner and the examiner's support team.

A recent bankruptcy court decision, which approved procedures governing upcoming claw back litigation, paves the way for the start of long-feared claw back litigation against investor victims of the Madoff fraud. The claw back suits will seek to recover funds withdrawn from Madoff accounts prior to the revelation of the scheme. Many had hoped that SIPC Trustee Irving Picard might refrain from bringing mass law suits against these so-called "net winners" because of the immense harm such suits will harm to people who have already suffered enormously from the fraud.

In our June 4, 2009 Client Update, we reported on the jury verdict the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") obtained against Charles Conaway, the former CEO of Kmart Corp for misleading investors about inventory and liquidity levels as the company was approaching its January 2002 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

On February 11, 2011, in a decision that represents a significant victory for institutional lenders and other proponents of capital market financing, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the District Court) issued a 113 page opinion overturning a $480 million fraudulent transfer judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Bankruptcy Court) against the so-called “Transeastern Lenders” in the TOUSA, Inc. (TOUSA) chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.i

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has reversed a bankruptcy court order that had required a group of lenders (“Transeastern Lenders”) to disgorge, as a fraudulent transfer, approximately $421 million paid to them by a joint venture partner (“TOUSA”) in satisfaction of their legitimate, uncontested loans to the joint venture that TOUSA had guaranteed. Together with pre-judgment interest, the total amount to be paid by the Transeastern Lenders was in excess of $480 million.