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.

On March 1st, the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings and SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities upheld the SIPC trustee's method for determining the net equity held by the victims of Madoff's fraud. The SIPC trustee defines net equity as the amount of cash deposited by the customer into his BLMIS customer account less any amounts withdrawn.

A recent court ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland clarifies the process for determining how much money investors may be entitled to receive in connection with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) proceeding involving the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The new ruling specifically related to whether investors could receive amounts equaling the totals appearing on their last account statements. The judge sided with the SIPC-appointed trustee, Irving Picard, who argued that investors could claim only the amount they first invested with Madoff (minus any withdrawals).

The Bankruptcy Court has now provided its long-awaited answer as to the scope of the Securities Investors Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) liability for investor accounts with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”). The ruling in favor of Irving Picard, the trustee responsible for the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) liquidation of Madoff, precludes recovery for many of the victims of Bernard Madoff’s infamous ponzi scheme and leaves the scope of the SIPC protection uncertain in future cases.