United States: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Holds that Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Protects from Avoidance Transfers of Fictitious Profits in Connection with Madoff Ponzi Scheme

In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("Madoff"),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed its broad and literal interpretation of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a safe harbor for transfers made in connection with a securities contract that might otherwise be attacked as preferences or fraudulent transfers. The Second Circuit held that the section 546(e) safe harbor prohibited the trustee (the "Trustee") in Madoff's liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA") from clawing back transfers of fictitious profits under state fraudulent transfer law made applicable in the SIPA proceeding by section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The fictitious profits had been transferred to customers in connection with the now infamous Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff.

In so holding, the Second Circuit found that transfers of fictitious profits pursuant to account and other brokerage agreements were protected transfers because they were made "in connection with" a "securities contract" and were also "settlement payments," even though no actual securities trades were effected for the benefit of transferee customers by the brokerdealer that operated as a Ponzi scheme. The decision is the latest in a string of decisions from the Second Circuit that broadly construe the section 546(e) safe harbor in accordance with the statute's plain language.

Section 546(e)—a Key Protection

Designed to minimize systemic risk in the financial markets, section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code contains safe harbors that limit a trustee's power to avoid certain transfers made by, to or for the benefit of certain identified financial market participants in connection with various types of financial transactions. These transactions include margin or settlement payments, securities contracts, swap agreements, forward contracts, repurchase agreements and commodity contracts. Section 546(e) protects "margin payments," "settlement payments" and transfers in connection with "securities contracts," "forward contracts" and "commodity contracts" made by, to or for the benefit of parties such as stockbrokers and financial institutions from avoidance by the trustee as preferences or fraudulent conveyances (whether under the Bankruptcy Code or under state law), except for actual fraudulent transfers under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.2

Section 546(e)'s financial contract safe harbors have been steadily expanded to embrace more transactions. Courts, including the Second Circuit, interpreting section 546(e), have acknowledged the breadth of the coverage of this safe harbor and have largely applied the plain language of the provision to broadly immunize enumerated transactions from avoidance even where the transactions at issue arguably did not impact the financial markets. By way of example, in Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. ALFA, S.A.B. de C.V. ("Enron"),3 the Second Circuit applied the plain meaning of section 546(e) and held that payments made to redeem commercial paper early were nonavoidable settlement payments under section 546(e) and rejected the notion that the safe harbor should be limited because the transactions at issue "did not involve a financial intermediary that took title to the transacted securities and thus did not implicate the risks that prompted Congress to enact the safe harbor." Along the same lines, in In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc,.4 the Second Circuit similarly applied a plain meaning approach to find that transfers under a Note Purchase Agreement to a financial institution acting as a conduit were transfers in connection with a securities contract made by or to a financial institution and thus protected by the section 546(e) safe harbor. Two other cases involving the interpretation of the scope of the section 546(e) safe harbor—In re Tribune Litigation (Case No. 13-3992) and Whyte v. Barclays Bank PLC (Case No. 13-2653)—are currently pending before the Second Circuit.

The Decision

In Madoff, the trustee appointed to oversee the SIPA liquidation of Bernard Madoff's fund ("BLMIS") sought to avoid transfers of fictitious profits to investors in connection with Madoff's Ponzi scheme as fraudulent transfers. Certain of BLMIS' customers sought to defend against avoidance on the ground that the transfers were protected by the safe harbor provision of section 546(e). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") ruled that such transfers made after two years prior to the commencement of Madoff's SIPA liquidation proceeding were not voidable as fraudulent transfers due to the applicability of section 546(e)'s safe harbor. The Trustee appealed such decision to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the holding of the District Court that section 546(e)'s safe harbor exempted the transfers at issue from avoidance. The Second Circuit's decision deals primarily with the broad definition of "securities contract" in the Bankruptcy Code and the expansive application of the safe harbor to any transfer made "in connection with" language of section 546(e). Guided by these two broad concepts, the Second Circuit had no difficulty in reaching its conclusion that the safe harbor applied.

The defendants argued that section 546(e) prohibited the Trustee from clawing back their distributions because the payments were made by a stockbroker "in connection with a securities contract" or, alternatively, because they were "settlement payments" made by a stockbroker. The defense relied on a suite of documents, including a "Customer Agreement," which authorized BLMIS to open or maintain one or more accounts, a "Trading Authorization," which appointed BLMIS to be the customer's agent to buy, sell and trade securities, and an "Option Agreement," which authorized BLMIS to engage in options trading for the customer's account (collectively, the "Account Documents").

The Second Circuit concluded that the Account Documents constituted a securities contract based on the types of agreements broadly described in the definition of "securities contract," which is found in section 741(7) of the Bankruptcy Code: section 741(7)(A)(x) (Account Documents were master agreements providing for the purchase, sale, or loan of a security); section 741(7)(A)(xi) (Account Documents qualified as "any guarantee or reimbursement obligation by or to a stockbroker" due to BLMIS' obligation to reimburse its customers upon request upon withdrawal from their accounts); and section 741(7)(vii) (Account Documents fell within the scope of "any other agreement ... that is similar to" "a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security"(emphasis added)).

Additionally, the court noted that the transfers at issue could not have been possible but for the relationship created by these agreements.

The Trustee argued that the Account Documents did not constitute a securities contract because (i) BLMIS never initiated, executed, completed or settled any securities transactions; (ii) the Account Documents never identified the specific terms of any securities transactions; and (iii) the Account Documents never expressly obligated BLMIS to carry out any specific transactions but merely authorized BLMIS to effect securities transactions. The Second Circuit acknowledged that the Trustee's observations were correct, but rejected these arguments in turn and found that the Account Documents created a "securities contract" as defined in section 741 of the Bankruptcy Code.

First, the Second Circuit found that section 546(e) does not require an actual purchase or sale of a security. Rather, the transfer need only be broadly related to a securities contract and not an actual securities transaction. The fact that BLMIS breached its obligations under the Account Documents did not vitiate the existence of those documents as a securities contract. Moreover, the Second Circuit found that the interpretation of the section 546(e) safe harbor espoused by the Trustee to require an actual securities transaction would risk the very sort of market disruption Congress was concerned with when enacting the provision, given that the defendant-customers of BLMIS had every reason to believe that BLMIS was engaged in actual securities transactions.

Second, the Second Circuit rejected the notion that the Account Documents were not securities contracts because they did not specify terms of securities transactions such as security, issuer, quantity or price. The court found that the language of section 546(e) imposes no such requirement and likewise found that the breadth of the definition of "securities contract" indicates that Congress intended no such requirement.

Third, the Second Circuit rejected the Trustee's argument that the Account Documents were not securities contracts because they merely authorized, but did not obligate, BLMIS to effect securities transactions for customers. The Second Circuit found that the definition of "securities contract" is not so limited, and that it encompasses the relationship created by the Account Documents. Specifically, the definition includes not only the enumerated types of contracts identified in section 741, but also "any other agreement ... that is similar to" "a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security."5 As the court noted, "[f]ew words in the English language are as expansive as 'any' and 'similar.'"

Once the Second Circuit concluded that the Account Documents constituted a securities contract, it had little difficulty concluding that the transfers to customers were made "in connection with" the securities contract. Relying on a plain language interpretation, the court viewed "in connection with" as a transfer "related to" or "associated with" the securities contract. Having concluded that the agreements constituted a securities contract, the Second Circuit quickly concluded that customer withdrawals from their accounts came within the scope of the safe harbor as being in connection with the Account Documents. The court noted that its conclusion was congruent with the broad interpretation of the "in connection with a purchase or sale of any security" requirement of Rule 10b-5 in the context of federal securities laws.

In rejecting the Trustee's argument that applying section 546(e) in the context of a Ponzi scheme would give legal effect to Madoff's fraud, and that Ponzi scheme payments by definition are not "in connection with" a securities contract, the Second Circuit noted that "[s]ection 546(e) sets a low bar for the required relationship between the securities contract and the transfer sought to be avoided." Payments made in connection with a Ponzi scheme may be made in connection with a securities contract, albeit one that has been breached.

Alternatively, the Second Circuit held that the transfers were also protected under section 546(e) because they were "settlement payments" made by a "stockbroker." Here the Second Circuit again rejected the Trustee's argument that there were no settlement payments because BLMIS never engaged in actual securities trading. Relying on its decision in Enron, the Second Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code definition of settlement payment should be broadly construed to apply to the transfer of cash or securities to complete a securities transaction. The Second Circuit agreed with the District Court that, because the customer granted BLMIS discretion to liquidate securities in the customer's account to the extent needed to implement the customer's sell orders or withdrawal requests, each transfer in respect of such an order was a settlement payment.

In closing, the Second Circuit rejected the Trustee's contention that the court's holding was inconsistent with its prior decision interpreting how to calculate the "net equity" claim of a "customer" under SIPA.6 The Second Circuit reasoned that (i) section 546(e) is found in the Bankruptcy Code and not SIPA and was not an issue in its prior decision regarding the computation of a customer's claim and (ii) section 546(e) represents the careful balance Congress has struck between the need for an equitable result for the debtor and the need for finality, which the Second Circuit felt obligated to respect.

Implications

While the Bankruptcy Code safe harbors have come under attack from various commentators in recent years, Madoff demonstrates that the Second Circuit will continue to interpret section 546(e) in accordance with its literal language. This decision should provide comfort to recipients of transfers made in connection with actual or purported securities transactions.

The decision does not address whether there is any room to deny application of the section 546(e) safe harbor for transfers where the transferee is actually aware of the fraudulent Ponzi scheme and that no actual securities transactions were being effected. The District Court had previously ruled that section 546(e) would not apply in such an instance, even with respect to actual fraudulent transfer claims outside of the Bankruptcy Code's two-year reach-back period under section 548(a)(1)(A).

Endnotes

1 12-2557-bk(L) (2d Cir. December 8, 2014).

2 Section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee to avoid transfers made with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors within two years of the petition date. Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee to bring state law fraudulent conveyance and fraudulent transfer actions for the benefit of the estate. As under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, transfers made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors can also be avoided under state fraudulent conveyance and fraudulent transfer laws. The statute of limitations on such claims vary by state but can be considerably longer than the two-year reach-back period under section 548(a)(1)(A). Therefore, the Trustee in Madoff was generally not able to rely on the exception to non-avoidance under section 546(e) with respect to state law actual fraudulent conveyances and transfers that occurred more than two years prior to the commencement of Madoff's SIPA liquidation proceeding.

3 651 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2011).

4 719 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2013).

5 11 U.S.C.§ 741(7)(A)(i), (vii) (emphases in opinion).

6 In re BLMIS, 654 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2011) (rejecting notion that customer's net equity claim should be determined according to fictitious account statements and holding that, in the context of a Ponzi scheme, a customer's net equity claim must be calculated according to its actual net investment in the customer's securities accounts).

Learn more about our Restructuring, Bankruptcy & Insolvency practice.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

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