United States: No Decision From Eighth Circuit On Validity Of Ponzi Scheme Presumption

Last Updated: May 29 2015
Article by Dan T. Moss

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court's decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors. On a motion for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court had determined that transfers effected as part of a massive, multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme satisfied both the "Ponzi scheme presumption" of fraud and the more general "badges of fraud" analysis. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the rulings below on the basis of the badges of fraud analysis. The court did not find it necessary to address the validity of the Ponzi scheme presumption, writing that "[w]e . . . draw no conclusions as to the validity or future applicability of the Ponzi scheme presumption in the Eighth Circuit."

Avoidance Powers and Proving Fraudulent Intent

Section 548(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a trustee or debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property or any obligation incurred by the debtor within the two years preceding a bankruptcy filing if: (i) the transfer was made, or the obligation was incurred, "with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud" any creditor; or (ii) the debtor received "less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation" and was, after the transfer, insolvent, undercapitalized, or unable to pay its debts as such debts matured.

Transfers or obligations may also be avoided under analogous state laws by operation of section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, which empowers a trustee or DIP to "avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property or any obligation incurred by the debtor that is voidable under applicable law by a creditor holding an unsecured claim" against the debtor. Examples of such laws are the versions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA") and the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act ("UFCA") adopted by most states. Like section 548(a)(1), both the UFTA and the UFCA provide for the avoidance of intentionally and constructively fraudulent transfers or obligations.

Proving actual intent to defraud under either section 548 or state law can be difficult. Many courts therefore permit plaintiffs to rely on "badges of fraud," a concept developed and applied by English courts since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, to support a case for avoidance based on actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. In general terms, badges of fraud are "circumstances so commonly associated with fraudulent transfers that their presence gives rise to an inference of intent." In re Sharp Intern. Corp., 403 F.3d 43, 56 (2d Cir. 2005). While there is no exhaustive catalog of badges of fraud, courts typically look for, among other things, "a close relationship between the parties to the alleged fraudulent transaction; a questionable transfer not in the usual course of business, inadequacy of consideration; . . . and retention of control of the property by the transferor after the conveyance." Id. (internal citations omitted); see also HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623, 639 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Actual fraudulent intent . . . may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the transaction, including the relationship among the parties and the secrecy, haste, or unusualness of the transaction"). Once the trustee or DIP establishes the existence of several badges of fraud, the trustee or DIP is entitled to a presumption of fraudulent intent. The burden then shifts to the transferee "to prove some legitimate supervening purpose for the transfers at issue." Kelly v. Armstrong, 141 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

With respect to Ponzi schemes, several courts have decided that "transfers made in furtherance of the scheme are presumed to have been made with the intent to defraud for purposes of recovering the payments under § 548(a)." Perkins v. Haines, 661 F.3d 623, 626 (11th Cir. 2011); accord Wing v. Dockstader, 2012 BL 140244 (10th Cir. 2012); Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008); Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006); see also In re DBSI, Inc., 476 B.R. 413, 422 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012) (" 'all payments made by a debtor in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme are made with actual fraudulent intent' ") (citation omitted). To trigger this presumption, a plaintiff must establish that a Ponzi scheme exists and that the transfers were made in furtherance of the scheme. See In re Manhattan Inv. Fund Ltd., 397 B.R. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

The Eighth Circuit had an opportunity to address these issues in Ritchie Capital.

Background

Ritchie Capital involved one of many disputes related to the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Thomas Petters ("Petters"), founder of Petters Group Worldwide ("PGW"). In this case, Petters, as the sole board member of PGW, directed PGW in 2005 to purchase Polaroid Holding Company ("Polaroid"), successor to the once iconic photographic technology pioneer. Petters thus became the 100 percent beneficial owner of Polaroid, an otherwise legitimate, independent, stand-alone business. After PGW acquired Polaroid, Petters became the sole member and chairman of the Polaroid board. Polaroid's business operations continued after the acquisition without substantial change.

Approximately three years later, however, Petters' companies—including Polaroid—began to experience financial difficulties. To alleviate these problems, between February 2008 and May 2008, Petters obtained loans from various hedge funds affiliated with Ritchie Capital Management, LLC (collectively, "Ritchie") totaling approximately $160 million. Some of these funds were used to pay debts of PGW and Polaroid. Polaroid was never a signatory to any of these loans, and although some of the funds were used to repay some of Polaroid's debts, none of the proceeds from these loans went directly to Polaroid.

Petters was unable to service the loans. By September 2008, all the loans were past due, and Ritchie demanded collateral. In response, Petters proposed a Trademark Security Agreement ("TSA") whereby Ritchie would be granted liens on several Polaroid trademarks. Polaroid's CEO objected, claiming that the agreement would inhibit her ability to secure new capital for the company (the TSA's terms did allow Polaroid to obtain first-priority secured financing for up to $75 million, but this was not disclosed to the CEO). Notwithstanding this objection, Petters executed the TSA on Polaroid's behalf on September 19, 2008.

Five days later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Petters' office and home, suspecting his involvement in a massive fraud. Shortly afterward, Ritchie accelerated the amounts due on all outstanding loans. Polaroid filed for chapter 11 protection on December 18, 2008, in the District of Minnesota. Petters was later convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering and was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Polaroid commenced an adversary proceeding in February 2009 against Ritchie, alleging that the TSA was unenforceable because, among other things, the obligations created under the agreement were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota's version of the UFTA because they were both actually and constructively fraudulent. A bankruptcy trustee was substituted as the plaintiff in the litigation after Polaroid's chapter 11 case was converted to a chapter 7 liquidation in August 2009.

The bankruptcy court bifurcated the litigation to consider the actual and constructive fraud claims separately. In the first phase, the court considered a motion for partial summary judgment on the trustee's actual fraudulent transfer claims.

To establish fraudulent intent, the trustee relied on both the Ponzi scheme presumption and the traditional badges of fraud analysis. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee's partial summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part. See Stoebner v. Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC, 472 B.R. 22 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2012). The court granted the motion on the issue of actual fraud, to which the court applied both the Ponzi scheme presumption and the badges of fraud analysis.

The bankruptcy court considered Petters' "overarching level of control," concluding that, under either theory, Ritchie's liens resulted from actual fraudulent transfers and were therefore avoidable. Explaining that while the presumption of fraudulent intent could be rebutted by "probative, significant evidence that the transferor-debtor lacked the intent to take the transferred value away from contemporaneous or future creditors," the court ruled that Ritchie failed to meet the burden of production necessary to demonstrate nonfraudulent intent.

The bankruptcy court found that the following badges of fraud established actual intent: (1) the lack of reasonably equivalent value given in exchange for the transfer; (2) concealment of the transfer; (3) litigation or the threat of litigation by the transferee in the absence of the transfer; (4) the transfer of "substantially all" of the transferor's assets; and (5) orchestration of the transfer by the sole person in common control.

Ritchie appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Noting that the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled on the application of the Ponzi scheme presumption to alleged fraudulent transfers, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's application of the Ponzi scheme presumption but expressly declined to address the badges of fraud analysis. See Ritchie Capital Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Stoebner, 2014 BL 420623 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2014). Ritchie then appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

The Eighth Circuit's Ruling

A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed. At the outset of its discussion, the court explained that many courts have looked to badges of fraud in determining whether a transfer was made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and that Minnesota's codification of the UFTA contains "a lengthy list" of factors or badges of fraud which a court may consider in deciding this issue. It further noted that many courts confronted with circumstances amounting to a Ponzi scheme, including courts in the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, have bypassed the badges of fraud analysis and applied the Ponzi scheme presumption.

However, the Eighth Circuit panel emphasized, the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled on the Ponzi scheme presumption, and the Minnesota Supreme Court recently rejected the presumption in Finn v. Allied Bank, 2015 BL 40772, *8 (Minn. Feb. 18, 2015). In Finn, the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote that "there is no statutory justification for relieving the Receiver of its burden of proving . . . fraudulent intent [which must] . . . be determined in light of the facts and circumstances of each case."

The Eighth Circuit panel concluded, however, that it need not take a position on this issue, noting merely that "[w]e thus draw no conclusions as to the validity or future applicability of the Ponzi scheme presumption in the Eighth Circuit."

Instead, the court affirmed the rulings below on the basis of its de novo review and approval of most of the bankruptcy court's badges of fraud analysis under Minnesota law. Among other things, the Eighth Circuit panel determined that:

  • In a case where multiple entities are involved, it is important to precisely identify whose intent is relevant to the consideration of fraudulent intent. Here, the Eighth Circuit focused on the intent of Polaroid, as directed and orchestrated by Petters.
  • Polaroid's trademarks were encumbered without any real benefit to Polaroid, which was not a party to the Ritchie loan agreements. Thus, the "lack of reasonably equivalent value" badge of fraud was present.
  • At the time the TSA was executed, Petters' Ponzi scheme was in a precarious financial position. Petters also was aware that Polaroid was in the zone of insolvency, given its inability to satisfy vendor payments. Although the liens granted by Polaroid to Ritchie were not granted to an insider per se, they were granted to Ritchie for the benefit of an insider, Petters. Thus, the "transfer for the benefit of an insider" badge of fraud was present.
  • It was undisputed that Polaroid had serious financial difficulties before the TSA was executed, which worsened afterward. Citing cases that look to unmanageable indebtedness in addition to insolvency, the Eighth Circuit panel found that the "insolvency of the debtor" badge of fraud was present.
  • Petters directed Polaroid to grant liens to Ritchie despite knowing that Polaroid's CEO feared that those liens would inhibit Polaroid's ability to raise much-needed capital. The Eighth Circuit found this relevant to discerning fraudulent intent irrespective of whether the CEO was aware of the new first-lien capital carve-out in the TSA.


On the basis of the existence of these badges of fraud, the Eighth Circuit found no fault with the bankruptcy court's conclusion that Polaroid, controlled solely by Petters, was presumed to have acted with the actual intent to defraud creditors when it granted liens to Ritchie under the TSA. The Eighth Circuit rejected Ritchie's argument that all the badges of fraud under Minnesota law were not established. According to the court, "[T]he law does not require the trustee to prove all of the badges [because] [o]nce a trustee establishes a confluence of several badges of fraud, the trustee is entitled to the presumption of fraudulent intent" (citations omitted).

However, this did not end the inquiry. Instead, it "merely shifted the burden to Ritchie to prove it took the liens in good faith and for value." The Eighth Circuit agreed with the bankruptcy court that Ritchie failed to satisfy this burden—a ruling, moreover, which Ritchie did not appeal.

Takeaway

Ritchie Capital may be a disappointment for those hoping that the Eighth Circuit would rule on the legitimacy of the Ponzi scheme presumption in the context of fraudulent transfer litigation. Even so, the court did not reject the validity of the presumption, and the court's flexible approach to establishing fraudulent intent leaves open the possibility that it might be receptive to the concept in a future case which does not involve the application of Minnesota law.

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
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
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