United States: Grede V. FCStone, LLC: A Confirmation Of The Broad Scope Of The Section 546(E) Safe Harbor

Last Updated: October 8 2014
Article by Alex M. Sher

Avoidance actions are an important source of recovery for the creditors of a bankruptcy estate.  Although estate representatives are given significant avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code, section 546(e)'s safe harbor prevents the unwinding of certain transactions that, if undone, could cause disruption to the securities and commodities markets.  Recently, in Grede v. FCStone, LLC, 746 F.3d 244 (7th Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confirmed courts' view of the expansiveness of the 546(e) safe harbor when it overruled a district court's "equitable" approach to creditor distributions.  The Seventh Circuit held that, among other things,  a trustee could not avoid a prepetition transfer to a favored customer (an investor in one of the debtor's securities investment portfolios) as a constructively fraudulent transfer because the transferred funds came from the debtor's sale of securities.  The court reasoned that the distribution to the customer from its investment account, like the payment made by the purchaser to the debtor for securities whose proceeds were deposited into the account, qualified as a "settlement payment" and was made "in connection with a securities contract."

The 546(e) Safe Harbor

In 1982, Congress broadened a limited safe harbor for securities transactions then set forth in section 764(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, which applied only in commodity-broker liquidation cases under chapter 7, by replacing the provision with section 546(e) (then designated as section 546(d), until renumbering in 1984).

Section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code imposes a number of limitations on a bankruptcy trustee's avoidance powers, including the power to avoid certain preferential and/or fraudulent transfers.  Section 546(e) provides:

Notwithstanding sections 544, 545, 547, 548(a)(1)(B), and 548(b) of [the Bankruptcy Code], the trustee may not avoid a transfer that is a margin payment, as defined in section 101, 741, or 761 of [the Bankruptcy Code], or settlement payment as defined in section 101 or 741 of [the Bankruptcy Code], made by or to (or for the benefit of) a commodity broker, forward contract merchant, stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, or securities clearing agency, or that is a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a commodity broker, forward contract merchant, stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, or securities clearing agency, in connection with a securities contract, as defined in section 741(7) [of the Bankruptcy Code], commodity contract, as defined in section 761(4) [of the Bankruptcy Code], or forward contract, that is made before the commencement of the case, except under section 548(a)(1)(A) of [the Bankruptcy Code].

The purpose of section 546(e) is to prevent "the insolvency of one commodity or security firm from spreading to other firms and possibly threatening the collapse of the affected market."  H.R. Rep. No. 97-420, at 1 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 583, 583, 1982 WL 25042.  The provision was "intended to minimize the displacement caused in the commodities and securities markets in the event of a major bankruptcy affecting those industries."  Id. 

If a transaction falls within the scope of section 546(e), it may not be avoided unless the transfer is avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code because it was made with actual fraud (i.e., with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors).  However, in determining whether a preferential or constructively fraudulent transfer (i.e., the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange and was insolvent, undercapitalized, unable to pay its debts or paid an insider under an employment agreement) is shielded from avoidance under section 546(e), key issues are often whether the transfer qualifies as a "settlement payment" and whether the transfer is made under a "securities contract."  In addition, to be within the scope of the safe harbor, a transfer must have been "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a commodity broker, a forward contract merchant, a stockbroker, a financial institution, a financial participant or a securities clearing agency.

The Seventh Circuit examined these issues in Grede.

Grede

Sentinel Management Group Inc. ("Sentinel") was in the business of managing investments for various clients, including futures commission merchants, hedge funds, financial institutions and individuals.  To invest, a customer deposited cash with Sentinel, which used the funds, pursuant to an investment agreement, to purchase securities that satisfied the guidelines of each customer's chosen investment portfolio.

Under SEC and CFTC regulations, Sentinel was obligated to hold customer property in trust segregated from its own property.  Nonetheless, Sentinel comingled cash and securities and failed to comply with the risk guidelines established for each portfolio.

Sentinel also engaged in proprietary trading.  Its trades were financed by the Bank of New York ("BNY").  The debt was secured by a lien on a BNY-maintained account (the "Lien Account") that originally held only Sentinel assets.  However, as time progressed, Sentinel began moving customer securities from segregated customer accounts into the Lien Account to fund its continued trading activities.

In the summer of 2007, Sentinel was undone when the subprime mortgage industry collapsed and credit markets tightened.  It filed for chapter 11 protection on August 17, 2007 in the Northern District of Illinois, shortly after BNY notified Sentinel that the bank would liquidate the Lien Account collateral (which included both Sentinel and customer securities) unless Sentinel repaid the approximately $370 million loan in full.

On the eve of bankruptcy, Sentinel engaged in several transactions that greatly improved the position of certain favored customers.  For example, Sentinel removed from the Lien Account $264 million worth of securities belonging to a favored customer group and replenished the Lien Account with $290 million worth of securities belonging to another customer group.  Hours before the bankruptcy filing, Sentinel also distributed $22.5 million in cash to certain favored customers, including $1.1 mnillion to FCStone, LLC ("FCStone").

After the bankruptcy filing, Sentinel continued to favor certain customers.  Among other things, it filed an emergency motion seeking court authority to sell $300 million worth of securities and distribute the proceeds to the customers, including FCStone, which received nearly $14.5 million.  The bankruptcy court subsequently clarified that its order did not "authorize" the distribution within the meaning of section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides for the avoidance of unauthorized post-bankruptcy transfers, because authorization necessarily would have been premised on a ruling that the transferred property belonged to the estate—a ruling that the court stated it had not made.

The bankruptcy court later appointed a chapter 11 trustee for Sentinel.  The trustee sued the favored customers, among other things, to avoid Sentinel's prepetition payments to those customers as preferences under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and to avoid the postpetition transfers described above under section 549.  The FCStone transfers were litigated as the first test case in the district court, which had withdrawn the reference of the avoidance action to the bankruptcy court because it found that the actions raised significant and unresolved issues of non-bankruptcy law.

The district court held that the assets transferred postpetition to FCStone were property of Sentinel's estate and that the postpetition payment was unauthorized under section 549 notwithstanding the bankruptcy court's original order approving the payment.  In concluding that the distribution to FCStone was not authorized, the district court deferred to the bankruptcy court's subsequent clarification of its original order.  

The district court also held that the prepetition payment to FCStone was avoidable as a preference.  Relying largely on policy grounds to justify avoidance, the district court concluded that section 546(e) did not apply, without addressing the litigants' specific arguments regarding the scope of the safe harbor.  The district court reasoned that it was "inconceivable" that Congress could have intended section 546(e) to apply in the circumstances before it.

The court distinguished between an insolvent debtor selling a security to a buyer shortly before filing for bankruptcy and an insolvent debtor distributing the proceeds of the sale of a customer's security.   According to the district court, shielding the transaction between the debtor and the buyer would serve section 546(e)'s purpose of preventing destructive ripple effects in the case of a bankruptcy.  However, in the district court's view, shielding the debtor's distribution of the sale proceeds to the customer would destabilize the financial system because it would be impossible to predict who would receive money in the event of a bankruptcy.

Applying the safe harbor to shield the prepetition payments to FCStone, the court wrote, "would create the very type of systemic market risks that Congress sought to prevent."  According to the court, where the debtor is a financial institution that sells securities on behalf of third-party customers, "§ 546(e) is invoked not to shield the actual exchange between Debtor and Buyer but to uphold the manner in which Debtor distributes exchange proceeds to its customers."  See Grede v. FCStone, LLC, 485 B.R. 854, 885 (N.D. Ill. 2013).  Moreover, the court reasoned, declining to apply the safe harbor would "not result in the unwinding of completed securities and commodities transactions that Congress sought to protect."  FCStone appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit's Ruling

A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed.  At the outset, the court noted that the district court's findings of fact clearly indicated that FCStone was a "commodity broker," the prepetition transfer to FCStone qualified as a "settlement payment" and the transaction was effected "in connection with a securities contract," as required by section 546(e).

Section 741(8) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court explained, circularly defines a settlement payment as "a preliminary settlement payment, a partial settlement payment, an interim settlement payment, a settlement payment on account, a final settlement payment, or any other similar payment commonly used in the securities trade."  The Seventh Circuit (among others) has held that "swapping shares of a security for money" falls within the definition.  See Peterson v. Somers Dublin Ltd., 729 F.3d 741, 749 (7th Cir. 2013); accord In Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (U.S.A) Inc. v. Am. Life Ins. Co. (In re Quebecor World (U.S.A.) Inc.), 719 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 2013) (defining a settlement payment as a "transfer of cash made to complete a securities transaction") (quoting Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V. (In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp.), 651 F.3d 329, 339 (2d Cir. 2011)).

The trustee argued that Sentinel's customers had no right to buy, sell or obtain the securities, but rather were entitled only to share in the value of the portfolio in which they invested.  This meant that Sentinel, as distinguished from the customer, transacted to sell the securities in order to finance customer redemptions (i.e., distributions).  In other words, the trustee argued that the relevant securities transaction, for purposes of considering whether section 546(e) applied, should have been the sale transaction between Sentinel and the purchaser of the securities, as distinguished from the redemption transaction between Sentinel and its customers—who only had an indirect beneficial interest in the securities sale transaction.  However, the Seventh Circuit panel found the payment from Sentinel to FCStone to be a "settlement payment" because customer redemptions "were meant to settle, at least partially, the customers' securities accounts with Sentinel."

The Seventh Circuit panel also held that the transfer to FCStone was made "in connection with a securities contract."  Section 741(7) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court explained, defines a "securities contract" broadly to include a "contract for the purchase, sale, or loan of a security." The court reasoned that, because Sentinel was expected to purchase and sell securities on behalf of its customers pursuant to investment agreements it entered into with its customers, the investment agreements qualified as securities contracts.  The fact that that the customers were entitled to cash rather than to the securities themselves, the court wrote, "does not change the fact that these customers' investment agreements were contracts for the purchase and sale of securities."  The court was unmoved by the fact that at least some of the funds distributed to FCStone may not have come from the sale of securities held within FCStone's portfolio because the funds were intended to satisfy Sentinel's obligations under the parties' investment agreement.

The Seventh Circuit faulted the district court's conclusion that transfers of the kind made to  FCStone transfer were not intended to be protected by Congress.  The court wrote that, "[b]y enacting § 546(e), Congress chose finality over equity for most pre-petition transfers in the securities industry—i.e., those not involving actual fraud."  Section 546(e), the court reasoned, "reflects a policy judgment by Congress that allowing some otherwise avoidable pre-petition transfers in the securities industry to stand would probably be a lesser evil than the uncertainty and potential lack of liquidity that would be caused by putting every recipient of settlement payments in the past 90 days at risk of having its transactions unwound in bankruptcy court."  "We understand the district court's powerful and equitable purpose" in attempting to resolve the conflict between the wronged customers fairly, the court wrote, "but its reasoning runs directly contrary to the broad language of § 546(e)."

The Seventh Circuit panel also ruled that held that the postpetition transfer to FCStone could not be undone under section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code because the transfer was authorized by the bankruptcy court.  Despite the bankruptcy court's attempt to "clarify" (i.e., modify) its order to permit the trustee to avoid the transfer, the Seventh Circuit panel found the initial order to have been clear on its face and the "clarification" to have been an abuse of discretion.  According to the Seventh Circuit panel, "[w]e doubt whether a bankruptcy court can ever authorize a transfer without authorizing it under § 549, but that's a larger puzzle we leave for another day."  Given its conclusion that the postpetition transfer was authorized within the meaning of section 549, the court declined to decide whether the funds at issue were property of Sentinel's estate.

Outlook

Grede is yet another illustration of the broad interpretation given by most courts to the section 546(e) safe harbor to protect the securities and commodities markets—irrespective of a result that may arguably lead to inequality in creditor distributions and despite indications of a debtor's prepetition misconduct.  Ultimately, unless there is a sound claim for actual fraud under section 548(a)(1)(A), estate representatives face an uphill battle in seeking to avoid a transaction that falls within section 546(e)'s broad definition of "settlement payment" or a transfer made "in connection with a securities contract

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions