Grede v. IFX Markets, Inc. et al
Filing
88
MOTION by Defendants IFX Markets, Inc., IPGL, Ltd. for judgment on counts I, II, IV and V (Shannon, Robert)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
FREDERICK J. GREDE, not individually but )
as Liquidation Trustee of the Sentinel )
Liquidation Trust,
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
Honorable James B. Zagel
)
)
)
IFX MARKETS, INC., IPGL LTD. & HAIN )
CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LTD.,
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 09-cv-00115
IFX MARKETS, INC.’S AND IPGL LTD.’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I, II, IV AND V OF THE TRUSTEE’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants, IFX MARKETS, INC. and IPGL Ltd., hereby submit this Motion for
Entry of Judgment on Counts I, II, IV and V of the Trustee’s Second Amended
Complaint.1
In support of their Motion, IFX Markets, Inc. and IPGL Ltd. state as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
This is one of 10 closely related adversary proceedings brought by the
Trustee against former SEG 1 customers (collectively, the “SEG 1 Cases”) of Sentinel
Management Group, Inc. (“Sentinel”). The defendants in the SEG 1 Cases are FCStone
LLC (“FCStone”) IFX Markets, Inc., IPGL Ltd., Farr Financial, Inc., Cadent Financial
Services, Rand Financial Services, Country Hedging Inc, Velocity Futures, LLC,
1
CI-9442936 v1
The Trustee is Frederick J. Grede as Liquidation Trustee for the Sentinel Liquidation Trust.
American National Trading Corp., ABN AMRO Clearing Chicago LLC and Crossland
LLC (collectively, the “SEG 1 Defendants”)2.
2.
The complaints in all these cases contain identical counts, cover the same
core facts and transactions, and raise the same issues. These counts are: (1) Count I for
avoidance and recovery of post-petition transfer under § 549 of the of Title 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”); (2) Count II for avoidance and
recovery of prepetition preferential transfer under § 547 of the Bankruptcy Code; (3)
Count III for declaratory judgment regarding the ownership interest in the SEG 1 reserve
funds held by the Trustee; (4) Count IV for unjust enrichment; and (5) Count V for
reduction or disallowance of claims. All the Seg 1 Defendants have raised the same core
defenses.
3.
Pursuant to this Court’s instructions, the Trustee and the Seg 1 Defendants
chose, and this Court approved Grede v. FCStone, Case No. 09-cv-136 (the “FCStone
Test Case”), as the test case for all the SEG 1 Cases.
4.
On January 4, 2013, after a bench trial, this Court entered final judgment
for the Trustee on Counts I (post-petition transfer), Count II (pre-petition preferential
transfer), Count III (declaratory judgment) and Count V (disallowance of claims) and for
FCStone on Count IV (unjust enrichment). FCStone appealed those counts decided
against it and the Trustee cross-appealed the finding as to Count IV. This Court has
refrained from making any further decisions in the other Seg 1 Cases pending the appeal.
2
IPGL Ltd. was not a customer of Sentinel. It is the assignee of IFX Markets, Inc.’s remaining
claims against Sentinel. The Trustee seeks relief agent IPGL Ltd. only under Counts III and V of the
Trustee’s Second Amended Complaint.
2
5.
On March 19, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit found in favor of FCStone and reversed this Court’s judgment on Counts I, II, III
and V. Grede v. FCStone, LLC, 734 F.3d 244, 246-47, 251-260 (7th Cir. 2014). The
Seventh Circuit held that the post-petition transfer (Count I) was authorized by the
Bankruptcy Court (id. at 246-47, 254-58)—and therefore that no avoidance action could
be brought by the Trustee under 11 U.S.C 549(a), and that the pre-petition preferential
transfer (Count II) fell within both the “settlement payment” and “securities contract”
safe harbor exceptions to claw back in § 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code Id. at 246-47,
251-54.
The Seventh Circuit also denied the Trustee’s cross-appeal for reinstatement of
his unjust enrichment claim (Count IV), affirming this Court’s holding that the Trustee’s
unjust enrichment claim is preempted by federal bankruptcy law. Id. at 259-60
6.
The Seventh Circuit’s opinion in the FCStone Test Case is binding
precedent for all the SEG 1 Cases with respect to the Trustee’s claims for: (1) avoidance
and recovery of Sentinel’s post-petition transfers (Count I); (2) avoidance and recovery of
Sentinel’s pre-petition preferential transfers (Count II); (3) unjust enrichment (Count IV);
and (4) reduction or disallowance of claims (Count V).3 It also collaterally estops the
Trustee from further litigation these claims, as the Trustee had every incentive and
opportunity to vigorously litigate these issues in the FCStone Test Case and may not now
re-litigate the adverse determinations against him. See Ank v. Koppers Co., 1991 U.S.
3
IPGL Ltd. is entitled to judgment on Count V under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code,
which provides for the disallowance of the claims of an entity that receives an avoidable transfer from the
debtor’s estate and does not return such transfer to the estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(d). Here, the Seventh
Circuit already has held that the post-petition and pre-petition transfers are not avoidable transfers from
Sentinel’s estate. IPGL Ltd., therefore, is entitled to judgment on Count V as well.
3
App. LEXIS 5381 (9th Cir. 1991) (“the situations that are most likely to create an implied
agreement to be bound involve a shared understanding that a single action is to serve as a
test case case that will resolve the claims or defenses of nonparties as well as parties.”);
Grubbs v. United Mine Workers, 723 F. Supp. 123 (W.D. Ark. 1989)(“It is obvious that
the parties regarded Royal as a test case as did the court and it was litigated accordingly.
There are, to this court’s knowledge, no procedural opportunities available in this
proceeding not available in Royal. The court perceives no “unfairness” in precluding the
Plan from relitigating the same issue ad infinitum. Although the doctrine of non-mutual
offensive collateral estoppel should be cautiously invoked, it is appropriate here.”)(and
collecting authority). Indeed, this Court has previously acknowledged that the Seventh
Circuit’s reversal of the FCStone Test Case would extinguish the Trustee’s identical
claims against the SEG 1 Defendants. See Jan. 22, 2013 Tr., pp. 8:23-9:1 (“It is true that
if the Court of Appeals says I’m completely wrong in FCStone and everybody is off the
hook as a result of that, you will have spent some money that perhaps your clients didn’t
have to …”).
7.
This Court, therefore, should enter judgment for IFX Markets, Inc. and
IPGL Ltd. and against the Trustee on Counts I, II, IV and V of the Trustee’s Second
Amended Complaint.4
4
IPGL Ltd. is not moving for the entry of judgment on Count III, which seeks a declaratory
judgment regarding the ownership interest in the SEG 1 reserve funds held by the Trustee, because the
Seventh Circuit did not decide the “property of the estate” issue.
4
WHEREFORE, IFX Markets, Inc. and IPGL Ltd. respectfully request this Court
to enter judgment for IFX Markets, Inc. and IPGL Ltd. and against the Trustee on Counts
I, II, IV and V of the Trustee’s Second Complaint.
Dated: September 3, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
IFX MARKETS, INC. and IPGL LTD.
By: /s/ Robert V. Shannon
Robert V. Shannon ( #3127440)
K&L Gates LLP
70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-1121
Facsimile: (312) 827-8000
Counsel for IFX Markets, Inc. and IPGL
Ltd.
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert V. Shannon, an attorney, certify that on September 3, 2014, I electronically filed
IFX Markets Inc.’s and IPGL Ltd.’s MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON COUNTS
I, II, IV AND V with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and further caused the
same to be served on all counsel of record via ECF Filing:
By: /s/ Robert V. Shannon
One of its attorneys
Robert V. Shannon ( #3127440)
K&L Gates LLP
70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-1121
Facsimile: (312) 827-8000
Counsel for IFX Markets, Inc. and IPGL Ltd.
CI-9442936 v1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?