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.  

WILMINGTON, Del. – The State of Idaho’s Department of Finance has won approval for a court-appointed examiner in the closely watched bankruptcy proceedings of DBSI, Inc., an Idaho-based investment firm. Judge Peter Walsh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has given the examiner the authority to probe $2 billion in allegedly fraudulent securities transactions made by DBSI. The scheme involved more than 12,000 investors and 270 properties throughout the country.

As the Madoff Securities and Stanford Financial schemes have unraveled in recent months, financial industry participants have had to scrutinize closely their involvement with these entities. A key issue in each of these cases will be the extent to which the trustee (or similar representative) can “claw back” payments made as part of the Ponzi and related fraudulent schemes. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered similar facts in Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC v. Redwood Growth Partners, L.P.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently determined that a judgment-debtor's transfer of property to a transferee with knowledge of the judgment was voidable under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. See For Your Ease Only, Inc. v. Calgon Carbon Corp., 560 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2009).

Though the transferee had given reasonably equivalent value to the judgment-debtor in exchange for the transfer, the court found that the transferee did not take the judgment debtor's assets in good faith because its principal knew that judgment had been entered.

C.A. No. 3989-CC (Del. Ch. Sept. 3, 2009)

A Florida bankruptcy court, on Oct. 13, 2009, issued a 182-page decision after a 13-day trial, among other things, avoiding on fraudulent transfer grounds (a) secured subsidiary guarantees of $500 million and (b) $420 million pre-bankruptcy payments. In re Tousa, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-10928; Adv. P. 08-1435 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009). The decision is on appeal to the district court.  

Relevance  

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

As the economy boomed in 2005-2007 and leverage increased to staggering levels, LBOs took a prominent place in the deal economy. During that time, investors completed 313 LBOs in the United States for approximately $630 billion.1 Following the recent economic downturn, many of those LBOs have become sources of controversy in a number of bankruptcies and restructurings - prominent examples include Tribune Co. and Lyondell Chemical Co.

Beneficiaries of a Ponzi scheme who were subsequently found liable to cheated investors under state securities laws could not discharge this liability under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Feb. 10, 2010, that a corporate debtor’s pre-bankruptcy severance payments to its former chief executive officer (“CEO”) were fraudulent transfers. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., ____ F.3d _____, 2010 BL 28145 (5th Cir. 2/10/10). Because of its holding “that the payments were fraudulent under the Bankruptcy Code,” the court did “not consider other possible violations, including [the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act] or [Bankruptcy Code] Section 547(b) [preferences].” Id. at *5.