Irving H. Picard v. Saul B. Katz et al

Filing 13

DECLARATION of Fernando A. Bohorquez Jr. in Opposition re: 1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5287A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by Irving H. Picard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Bohorquez, Fernando)

Exhibit E

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Karen E. Wagner ([e-mail])
Denis J. McInerney ([e-mail])
Jonathan D. Martin ([e-mail])
Attorneys for Sterling Equities Associates
and Certain Affiliates
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------ x
:
SECURITIES INVESTOR
:
PROTECTION CORPORATION,
:
:
Plaintiff-Appellant, : SIPA LIQUIDATION
(Substantively Consolidated)
:
Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (BRL)
v.
:
:
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT :
SECURITIES LLC,
:
:
:
Defendant.
:
------------------------------ x
:
In re:
:
:
:
BERNARD L. MADOFF,
:
:
Debtor.
:
------------------------------ x
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF STERLING EQUITIES ASSOCIATES
AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES REGARDING NET EQUITY AND AVOIDANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 2
I. THE TRUSTEE IS REQUIRED TO CALCULATE BLMIS CUSTOMERS’ “NET
EQUITY” CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SIPA......................................... 2
A.

SIPA’s Plain Meaning Governs the Definition of “Net Equity” ................... 2

B.

The Trustee’s “Cash-In/Cash-Out” Approach Has No Legal Basis .............. 6
1.

The Trustee’s Views of “Fairness” Cannot Justify Unlawful
Actions ............................................................................................ 6

2.

Claiming That All Customers Are Guilty Is No Justification....... 11

II. THE TRUSTEE HAS NO POWER TO AVOID PAYMENTS TO INNOCENT
CUSTOMERS ...................................................................................................... 14
A.

Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) Limits the Trustee’s Avoidance Power
to Section 548(a)(1)(A)................................................................................ 14

B.

The Trustee Cannot State Any Claims Under Section 548(a)(1)(A)
Because BLMIS Was Legally Obligated to Make the Transfers................. 16
1.

The Transfers Satisfied Antecedent Debts Owed to Customers... 17

2.

No Intentional Fraud Can Be Alleged Where a Transfer
Satisfied Antecedent Debt............................................................. 21

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
PAGE
105 East Second Street Assoc. v. Bobrow,
175 A.D.2d 746, 573 N.Y.S.2d 503 (1st Dep’t 1991) .................................................20
In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp., 263 B.R. 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) .............................11
In re Bayou Group, LLC, 362 B.R. 624 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) .....................................25
Bevill Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corp. v. Spencer Savings & Loan Ass’n,
878 F.2d 742 (3d Cir. 1989).........................................................................................15
Boston & Maine Corp. v. Chicago Pacific Corp., 785 F.2d 562 (7th Cir. 1986)..............11
Boston Trading Group v. Burnazos, 835 F.2d 1504 (1st Cir. 1987) ...........................22, 23
Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979)........................................................................7
CFTC v. Equity Fin. Group,
No. Civ. 04-1512, 2005 WL 2143975 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2005) .......................................9
CFTC v. Franklin, 652 F. Supp. 163 (W.D. Va. 1986) .......................................................9
CFTC v. Topworth Int’l, Ltd., 205 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1999).............................................9
In re C.J. Wright & Co., 162 B.R. 597 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1993) ......................................10
In re Carrozzella & Richardson, 286 B.R. 480 (D. Conn. 2002)......................................24
Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A.,
511 U.S. 164 (1994) ...................................................................................................11
In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 813 F.2d 1177 (11th Cir. 1987)........................................21
Coder v. Arts, 213 U.S. 223 (1909) ...................................................................................22
Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) ..................................................2
Contemporary Indus. Corp. v. Frost, 564 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2009)..................................15
Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1 (1924).....................................................................8, 22
Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................... 25-26
ii

Ferguson v. Lion Holding, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ...........................12
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989) .....................................................23
Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2004) .................................................... 18-19
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.,
527 U.S. 308 (1999).....................................................................................................26
HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623 (2d Cir. 1995) ................................................21
In re Hanover Square Sec., 55 B.R. 235 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985) ....................................12
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000)...........15
Harwood v. Int’l Estate Planners, 33 F. App’x 903 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................17
In re Hedged-Investments Associates, Inc., 84 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 1996) ......................26
In re Highland Superstores, Inc., 154 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 1998)..........................................7
Howell v. Freifeld, 631 F. Supp. 1222 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ...................................................19
In re Indep. Clearing House Co., 77 B.R. 843 (D. Utah 1987) .........................................26
Irving Trust Co. v. Chase Nat’l Bank, 65 F.2d 409 (2d Cir. 1933) ...................................17
Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (2004) ................................................................1
In re Lapiana, 909 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................7
Levy v. Bessemer Trust Co.,
No. 97 Civ. 1785, 1999 WL 199027, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 1999) ..........................20
Lipkien v. Krinski, 192 A.D. 257, 182 N.Y.S. 454 (1st Dep’t 1920).................................19
Lowenbraun v. L.F. Rothschild, 685 F. Supp. 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)...........................19, 20
In re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd., 310 B.R. 500 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) ...............24
In re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd., 397 B.R. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ...............................25
McMahan & Co. v. Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc., 65 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995).........19
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006) .......................18

iii

In re Moore, 39 B.R. 571 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1984)...........................................................26
Nathel v. Siegal, 592 F. Supp. 2d 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ....................................................19
In re New Times Sec. Servs., Inc., 371 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2004).................................. passim
In re New Times Sec. Servs., Inc., 463 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2006)...................................... 4-5
In re Old Naples Securities, Inc., 311 B.R. 607 (M.D. Fla. 2002) ....................................10
Osofsky v. Zipf, 645 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1981).....................................................................19
Panos v. Island Gem Enters., 880 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).....................................19
Partridge v. Presley, 189 F.2d 645, 651 (D.C. Cir. 1951) .......................................... 11-12
In re QSI Holdings, Inc., 571 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2009).....................................................15
Raleigh v. Ill. Dep’t of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15 (2000) ..........................................................7
Redstone v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 583 F. Supp. 74 (D. Mass. 1984).............................18
In re Resorts Int’l, Inc., 181 F.3d 505 (3d Cir. 1999)........................................................15
Richardson v. Germania Bank, 263 F. 320 (2d Cir. 1919).......................................... 16-17
In re Rubin Bros. Footwear, Inc., 119 B.R. 416 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ....................................17
SEC v. Am. Bd. of Trade, Inc., 830 F.2d 431 (2d Cir. 1987) ...............................................9
SEC v. Byers,
637 F. Supp. 2d 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)............................................................................9
SEC v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.,
No. 99 Civ. 11395, 2000 WL 1752979 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2000) ...............................9
SEC v. Funding Res. Group,
No. 3-98-CV-2689-M, 2004 WL 1189996 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2004) .........................9
SEC v. Packer, Wilbur & Co., 498 F.2d 978 (2d Cir. 1974) .............................................13
SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002) ..............................................................................18
SIPC v. Charisma Sec. Corp., 371 F. Supp. 894 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)....................................13

iv

Scalp & Blade, Inc. v. Advest, Inc.,
309 A.D.2d 219, 765 N.Y.S.2d 92 (4th Dep’t 2003)...................................................17
Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1995)..............................................................26
In re Sharp International Corp., 403 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................23, 24, 26
In re Taubman, 160 B.R. 964 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993)....................................................26
In re Tedlock Cattle Co., 552 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1977).....................................................9
Ultramar Energy, Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.,
191 A.D.2d 86 (1st Dep’t 1993) ..................................................................................23
In re Unified Commercial Capital, 260 B.R. 343 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2001)......... 25, 26-27
In re Unified Commercial Capital,
Nos. 01-MBK-6004L, 01-MBK-6005L,
2002 WL 32500567 (W.D.N.Y. June 21, 2002).................................................... 24-25
United States v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535 (1996)...........................................................7, 8, 10
United States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.,
518 U.S. 213 (1996).................................................................................................7, 10
Van Iderstine v. National Discount Co., 227 U.S. 575 (1913) ..........................................21
Visconsi v. Lehman Bros., 244 F. App’x 708 (6th Cir. 2007) .....................................17, 18
In re World Vision Entm’t, Inc., 275 B.R. 641 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002) ..........................25
In re Young, 294 F. 1 (4th Cir. 1923)...................................................................................9

STATUTES & RULES
11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A)........................................................................................................20
11 U.S.C. § 101(12) ...........................................................................................................20
11 U.S.C. § 510(c) ..........................................................................................................8, 9
11 U.S.C. § 544..................................................................................................................20
11 U.S.C. § 546..................................................................................................................15

v

11 U.S.C. § 546(e) .................................................................................................14, 15, 21
11 U.S.C. § 547(b) .............................................................................................................22
11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A) .......................................................................................14, 16, 24
11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B) ...................................................................................................20
11 U.S.C. § 548(d)(2)(A)...................................................................................................20
11 U.S.C. § 741(7)(A)........................................................................................................15
15 U.S.C. § 78ccc(b)(4)(A)..................................................................................................3
15 U.S.C. § 78ddd................................................................................................................8
15 U.S.C. § 78ddd(c)(1).......................................................................................................8
15 U.S.C. § 78ddd(c)(2).......................................................................................................8
15 U.S.C. § 78fff-2(b)....................................................................................................2, 12
15 U.S.C. § 78fff-2(c)(1) .................................................................................................1, 7
15 U.S.C. § 78fff-3 ..........................................................................................................1, 8
15 U.S.C. § 78fff(a)(1)(A)-(B) ............................................................................................2
15 U.S.C. § 78lll(2)............................................................................................................12
15 U.S.C. § 78lll(11)................................................................................................1, 2, 3, 5
N.Y. U.C.C. § 8-102(a)(9)(i) .............................................................................................18
N.Y. U.C.C. § 8-102(a)(17) ...............................................................................................18
N.Y. U.C.C. § 8-501(b)(1).................................................................................................18
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 270 ..........................................................................................20
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 272 ..........................................................................................20
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 273 ..........................................................................................20

vi

OTHER AUTHORITIES
5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 547.01 (15th ed.) .....................................................................22
1 G. Glenn, Fraudulent Conveyances and Preferences (rev. ed. 1940) ...................... 22-23
H.R. Rep. No. 95-746 (1978)...............................................................................................4
Irving H. Picard & Stephen P. Harbeck, Another View: Unwinding Madoff’s Fraud,
Fairly, N.Y. Times Dealbook, May 6, 2009..................................................................6
S. Rep. No. 95-763 (1978) ...................................................................................................4
SIPC 2008 Annual Report ...................................................................................................8
SIPC, et al., Understanding Your Brokerage Account Statements ......................................3

vii

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Pursuant to this Court’s Order Scheduling Adjudication of “Net Equity” Issue,
dated September 16, 2009, Sterling Equities Associates and certain of its affiliates (the
“Customers”) 1 respectfully submit this memorandum of law and the accompanying
declaration in opposition to the motion of Irving H. Picard (“Trustee”), trustee for the
substantively consolidated liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
(“BLMIS”) and Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”), for an order approving the Trustee’s
proposed calculation of “net equity” claims.
This case is governed by the plain language of the Securities Investor Protection
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa, et seq. (“SIPA”). SIPA includes an express definition of “net
equity.” 15 U.S.C. § 78lll(11). “Net equity” claims are satisfied from customer property,
15 U.S.C. § 78fff-2(c)(1)(A), and from a fund that the Securities Investor Protection
Corporation (“SIPC”) maintains for that purpose (the “SIPC Fund”). 15 U.S.C. § 78fff-3.
The Trustee and SIPC ask the Court to replace SIPA’s statutory mandate with a
“cash-in/cash-out” approach that is based on personal views of fairness and
impermissible theories of avoidance. It is beyond the province of the Court, however, to
depart from the plain language of the statute to provide for what the Trustee and SIPC
“might think . . . is the preferred result.” Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 542
(2004).

1

at n.1.

As listed in the Declaration of Arthur Friedman dated November 11, 2009 (“Friedman Decl.”),

ARGUMENT
I.
THE TRUSTEE IS REQUIRED TO CALCULATE BLMIS
CUSTOMERS’ “NET EQUITY” CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SIPA
SIPA requires the Trustee to “satisfy net equity claims of customers” of a failed
broker. 15 U.S.C. § 78fff(a)(1)(A)-(B). SIPA defines “net equity” in unambiguous
terms. 15 U.S.C. § 78lll(11). “[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute
what it means and means in a statute what it says there. When the words of a statute are
unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’”
Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992).
A.

SIPA’s Plain Meaning Governs
the Definition of “Net Equity”
Determining “net equity” claims begins

and ends

with SIPA’s definition:

“The term ‘net equity’ means the dollar amount of the account or accounts
of a customer, to be determined by
(A) calculating the sum which would have been owed by the debtor to
such customer if the debtor had liquidated, by sale or purchase on the
filing date, all securities positions of such customer . . .; minus
(B) any indebtedness of such customer to the debtor on the filing date[.]”
15 U.S.C. § 78lll(11).
A customer’s “net equity” claim is the “dollar amount” that would result if the
broker had “liquidated [the customer’s securities positions] by sale or purchase on the
filing date.” 15 U.S.C. § 78lll(11). “Securities positions” are established by reference to
the “books and records of the debtor,” 15 U.S.C. § 78fff-2(b)

here, the customers’

November 30, 2008 account statements, which detail the “securities positions” that

2

BLMIS owed the customers as of the liquidation filing date. 2 Friedman Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex.
D. The only permissible deduction from that amount is “any indebtedness of such
customer to the debtor on the filing date” i.e., any margin obligations. 15 U.S.C.
§ 78lll(11). 3
In In re New Times Securities Services, Inc., 371 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2004) (“New
Times I”), the Second Circuit, SIPC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) agreed that the statutory text applies without ambiguity to customers with
account statements reflecting securities positions in real securities. New Times, like
BLMIS, involved a broker engaged in a Ponzi scheme in which no securities were
actually purchased. Most New Times customers were issued account statements
reflecting investments in real securities (the “Real Securities Claimants”), and SIPC, with
the concurrence of the SEC, paid their “net equity” claims based on their final account
statements. See New Times I, 371 F.3d at 71-72, 74.
This outcome, mandated by the statute’s plain language, is supported by SIPA’s
legislative history. The Senate and House reports on the 1978 amendments to SIPA show

2

SIPC informs customers that, in the event of a broker’s bankruptcy, their account statements will
be the best way to prove what the broker owed them:
“In the unlikely event your brokerage firm fails, you will need to prove that cash and/or
securities are owed to you. This is easily done with a copy of your most recent statement
and transaction records of the items bought or sold after the statement.” SIPC, et al.,
Understanding Your Brokerage Account Statements, at 5, available at
http://www.sipc.org/pdf/Broker Statements 2 13.pdf.
3

Congress made clear in SIPA that SIPC has no power to alter the statutory definition of “net
equity” in Section 78lll:
“SIPC shall have the power . . . to adopt, amend, and repeal, by its Board of Directors,
such rules as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter,
including rules relating to . . . the definition of terms in this chapter, other than those
terms for which a definition is provided in section 78lll of this title . . .” 15 U.S.C.
§ 78ccc(b)(4)(A) (emphasis added).

3

that Congress contemplated that a customer’s “net equity” would include “securities
positions” in securities that the broker never actually purchased:
“Under present law, because securities belonging to customers may have
been lost, improperly hypothecated, misappropriated, never purchased or
even stolen, it is not always possible to provide to customers that which
they expect to receive, that is, securities which they maintained in their
brokerage account. . . . By seeking to make customer accounts whole and
returning them to customers in the form they existed on the filing date, the
amendments . . . would satisfy the customers’ legitimate expectations. . . .”
S. Rep. No. 95-763, at 2 (1978) (emphasis added).
“A customer generally expects to receive what he believes is in his
account at the time the stockbroker ceases business. But because
securities may have been lost, improperly hypothecated, misappropriated,
never purchased, or even stolen, this is not always possible. Accordingly,
[when this is not possible, customers] will receive cash based on the
market value as of the filing date.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-746, at 21 (1978)
(emphasis added).
Some New Times customers, however, received account statements reflecting
imaginary securities (the “Fake Securities Claimants”). See New Times I, 371 F.3d at 7172. Their “net equity” claims could not be determined by direct application of the statute
because the imaginary securities “did not exist and, thus, could not be liquidated or
replaced by the Trustee.” See id. at 76, 87-88. “To be clear and this is the crucial fact
in this case the New Age Funds in which the [Fake Securities] Claimants invested
never existed.” See id. at 74 (emphasis in original).
The Second Circuit concluded that the Fake Securities Claimants’ “net equity”
claims could be valued on a “cash-in/cash-out” basis, but only because it would be
impossible for the imaginary securities to be “liquidated by sale or purchase on the filing
date,” as SIPA requires. See id. at 88. As another Second Circuit panel later emphasized:
“Because there were no such securities, and it was therefore impossible to
reimburse customers with the actual securities or their market value on
the filing date (the usual remedies when customers hold specific
securities), the [New Times I panel] determined that the securities should
4

be valued according to the amount of the initial investment. The court
declined to base the recovery on the rosy account statements telling
customers how well the imaginary securities were doing, because treating
the fictitious paper profits as within the ambit of the customers’
‘legitimate expectations’ would lead to the absurdity of ‘duped’ investors
reaping windfalls as a result of fraudulent promises made on fake
securities. . . . The court looked to the initial investment as the measure for
reimbursement because the initial investment amount was the best proxy
for the customers’ legitimate expectations.” In re New Times Sec. Servs.,
Inc., 463 F.3d 125, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2006) (“New Times II”) (citations
omitted) (emphasis added).
The Trustee argues that BLMIS customers should be treated like the Fake
Securities Claimants because even though the securities listed on their account
statements were real Madoff purportedly could not have obtained the aggregate
securities positions set forth on all of his thousands of customers’ account statements. 4
(Tr. Br. at 40-41.) 5 The argument finds no support in the statute’s plain language or its
purpose. As SIPA and New Times I make clear, if customers’ account statements reflect
securities positions in real securities that can be “liquidated by sale or purchase on the
filing date,” the Trustee must either purchase the securities or pay customers the market
value of those securities on the filing date. 15 U.S.C. § 78lll(11). Moreover, SIPA’s
4

As explained in the text, the argument is irrelevant to the determination of “net equity” under the
statute. The argument fails for the additional reason that SIPA considers only “the account or accounts of a
customer,” 15 U.S.C. § 78lll(11), not all of the broker’s customer accounts in the aggregate, which is
consistent with the statute’s purpose of protecting each customer’s legitimate expectations.
Moreover, the Trustee’s suggestion that BLMIS customers do not have “net equity” claims
because their securities positions were allegedly impossible to achieve (Tr. Br. at 40-41), or because the
Trustee now believes “red flags” of Madoff’s fraud were evident, just reprises a similar argument that SIPC
made – and that was flatly rejected – in New Times I. Both the SEC and the Second Circuit made clear in
New Times I – over SIPC’s objection – that SIPA has no “goal of greater investor vigilance.” See New
Times I, 371 F.3d at 87 (rejecting SIPC’s contention that customers should be compelled to perform
sufficient diligence to confirm that their securities positions are not fake).
5

“Tr. Br.” refers to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Trustee’s Motion for an Order
Upholding Trustee’s Determination Denying “Customer” Claims for Amounts Listed on Last Customer
Statement, Affirming Trustee’s Determination of Net Equity, and Expunging Those Objections with
Respect to the Determinations Relating to Net Equity. “SIPC Br.” refers to the Memorandum of Law of
the Securities Investor Protection Corporation in Support of Trustee’s Motion for an Order Denying
“Customer” Claims for Amounts Listed on Last Statement, Affirming Trustee’s Determination of Net
Equity, and Expunging Those Objections with Respect to the Determinations Relating to Net Equity.

5

purpose is to protect broker-dealer customers; the statute does not, as the Trustee
suggests, impose an obligation on “investors to research and monitor their investments
(and their brokers) with greater care.” New Times I, 371 F.3d at 87.
B.

The Trustee’s “Cash-In/Cash-Out”
Approach Has No Legal Basis
The Trustee and SIPC have asserted that, in this case, SIPA’s definition of “net

equity” should be replaced with their alternative “cash-in/cash-out” approach. SIPC has
conceded that the approach deviates from its standard practice. 6 SIPC and the Trustee
contend that their approach offers a “fair, equitable and compassionate approach to the
allowance of customer claims.” Irving H. Picard & Stephen P. Harbeck, Another View:
Unwinding Madoff’s Fraud, Fairly, N.Y. Times Dealbook, May 6, 2009. 7 They also
argue that BLMIS customers cannot claim what they are entitled to under the statute
because they are themselves responsible for Madoff’s fraud. (Tr. Br. at 33-35, 48-49, 5253; SIPC Br. at 27-33.) Neither argument withstands scrutiny.
1.

The Trustee’s Views of “Fairness” Cannot Justify Unlawful Actions

The Trustee’s and SIPC’s argument that the “cash-in/cash-out” approach should
be adopted because it is “fair” and “equitable” is unsupportable.
6

SIPC President Stephen Harbeck conceded the ad hoc nature of the Trustee’s proposed approach
in this case when he made the following statements very shortly after the January 2, 2009 SIPC customer
claim form was mailed out to the thousands of BLMIS customers:
•

“We’ve modified our usual claim form to ask investors a question that’s unique to this case,
which is how much money did you put in and how much money did you take out.” (Jan. 6,
2009, CNBC (emphasis added)).

•

“[O]ne of the first things that we did . . . was to modify our standard claim form to make sure
that we asked the claimants themselves what evidence they had in terms of money in and
money out, because that’s going to be one of the critical factors.” (Jan. 5, 2009, Stephen
Harbeck, testimony before House Financial Services Committee (emphasis added)).

7

Available at http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/another-view-unwinding-madoffsfraud-fairly/ (May 6, 2009, 11:46 EST).

6

First, customers’ “net equity” claims must be based on applicable law

not

“undefined considerations of equity.” Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55-56
(1979). Accordingly, neither the Trustee nor this Court is “authorized in the name of
equity to make wholesale substitution of underlying law controlling the validity of
creditors’ entitlements.” Raleigh v. Ill. Dep’t of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15, 24-25 (2000); see
also In re Highland Superstores, Inc., 154 F.3d 573, 579 (6th Cir. 1998) (bankruptcy
court may not “sweep aside [substantive] law in favor of general equitable principles
in computing [a creditor’s claim]”); In re Lapiana, 909 F.2d 221, 224 (7th Cir. 1990)
(“[B]ankruptcy judges are not empowered to dissolve rights in the name of equity.”).
Second, the “cash-in/cash-out” approach discriminates among customers and
impermissibly effects a “categorical reordering of priorities that takes place at the
legislative level.” See United States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.,
518 U.S. 213, 229 (1996) (holding that bankruptcy courts may not rank claims within the
class of general unsecured creditors in the name of equity). Contrary to 15 U.S.C.
§ 78fff-2(c)(1)(B), customers would not share “ratably” under the Trustee’s approach, but
would be treated differently if they are (in the Trustee’s parlance) a “net winner” or a “net
loser.” The Trustee cannot ask this Court to treat individual BLMIS customers
differently, because bankruptcy courts “are not free to adjust the legally valid claim of an
innocent party who asserts the claim in good faith merely because the court perceives that
the result is inequitable.” United States v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535, 540-41 (1996) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Third, the Trustee’s “cash-in/cash-out” approach impermissibly elevates SIPC’s
fourth priority under 15 U.S.C. § 78fff-2(c)(1)(D) by permitting it to recover ahead of

7

customers who are entitled to level two priority. 8 “Decisions about the treatment of
categories of claims in bankruptcy proceedings . . . are not dictated or illuminated by
principles of equity”

precisely because, if they were, it “would empower a court to

modify the operation of the priority statute at the same level at which Congress operated
when it made its characteristically general judgment to establish the hierarchy of claims
in the first place.” Noland, 517 U.S. at 540-41 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Trustee’s approach reduces payments from the SIPC Fund, which in essence elevates the
SIPC Fund from a fourth priority subrogee claimant (after payments are made to
customers) to a second priority claimant (retaining funds otherwise payable to
customers). See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78ddd, 78fff-3. 9
None of the cases proffered by the Trustee or SIPC supports their effort to
circumvent these established principles and SIPA’s mandate.
SIPC and the Trustee cite Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1 (1924), for the
principle that “equality is equity.” But Cunningham was not a case about “fairness” it
was a preference case decided under the Bankruptcy Act. See id. at 10-11. Nor did the
case involve SIPA, which was not to be enacted for many decades. Cunningham

8

Bankruptcy trustees may seek to subordinate a particular claim based on the inequitable conduct
of a specific creditor, if permitted under principles of equitable subordination. See 11 U.S.C. § 510(c);
Noland, 517 U.S. at 540. A bankruptcy trustee may not, however, subordinate a class of claims based “on
the supposedly general unfairness of satisfying [those claims].” Noland, 517 U.S. at 541.
9

The SIPC Fund pays up to $500,000 for securities owed to customers, and $100,000 for cash.
See 15 U.S.C. § 78fff-3(a). The statute requires SIPC to impose annual assessments on its broker-dealer
members so that the fund is maintained at an appropriate level. See 15 U.S.C. § 78ddd(c)(2). Since 1996,
the annual assessment that SIPC imposed on each SIPC member, regardless of size (i.e., regardless of
whether the member had one hundred or one million customers), was $150 – the bare minimum permitted
under SIPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 78ddd(c)(1); SIPC 2008 Annual Report at 9, available at
www.sipc.org/pdf/SIPC%20Annual%20Report%202008%20FINAL.pdf. Effective April 1, 2009, the
assessment was increased to 1/4 of 1% of each member’s net operating revenues. Id.

8

therefore has no bearing on the interpretation of “net equity” in SIPA, and instead
supports the principle that a governing statute must be followed.
The Trustee and SIPC also rely heavily on equity receivership cases. See CFTC
v. Topworth Int’l, Ltd., 205 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1999); CFTC v. Equity Fin. Group, No.
Civ. 04-1512, 2005 WL 2143975 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2005); SEC v. Funding Res. Group,
No. 3-98-CV-2689-M, 2004 WL 1189996 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2004); SEC v. Credit
Bancorp, Ltd., No. 99 Civ. 11395, 2000 WL 1752979 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2000); CFTC
v. Franklin, 652 F. Supp. 163 (W.D. Va. 1986). But, unlike in cases governed by statute,
receivership courts are given great discretion, unfettered by specific statutory mandates,
to fashion remedies. These cases have no relevance to proceedings governed by SIPA
and the Bankruptcy Code. As recognized in SEC v. Byers, a “bankruptcy court would
have less flexibility in determining the most equitable approach to distribute assets to
victims,” than would a court overseeing a receivership. 637 F. Supp. 2d 166, 176
(S.D.N.Y. 2009). 10
In another non-SIPA case cited by the Trustee and SIPC, In re Tedlock Cattle Co.,
552 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1977), the bankruptcy trustee in fact agreed that under applicable
state law the investors in the Ponzi scheme had allowable claims for benefit-of-thebargain damages, not just invested principal. See id. at 1352. In addition, the “equitable”
distribution sanctioned in Tedlock Cattle (relying on In re Young, 294 F. 1 (4th Cir.
1923)) has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court, which has squarely held that Section
510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, not sweeping notions of “equity,” governs the

10

Precisely because receiverships lack “the guidance of the bankruptcy code,” the Second Circuit
has instructed that bankruptcy proceedings are preferable to receiverships in liquidations of broker-dealers.
See SEC v. Am. Bd. of Trade, Inc., 830 F.2d 431, 437 (2d Cir. 1987).

9

subordination of claims in distribution. See Reorganized CF & I Fabricators, 518 U.S. at
228-29; Noland, 517 U.S. at 541.
Nor do the SIPA cases cited by the Trustee support a “cash-in/cash-out”
valuation. In re Old Naples Securities, Inc., 311 B.R. 607 (M.D. Fla. 2002), concerned
claims for cash, not

as here

claims for securities, and the court therefore did not have

to address whether the customers’ “securities positions” could be “liquidated by sale or
purchase on the filing date.” See id. at 616. In a case rather the converse of this one, In
re C.J. Wright & Co., 162 B.R. 597 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1993), customers held only
worthless securities, and the SIPC Trustee argued that their recovery should be limited to
the securities themselves. The court concluded that the customers should instead be
allowed “claims for cash” in the amount of their initial investments. Id. at 609.
The Trustee’s contention that departure from the allowance and distribution rules
of SIPA is warranted because this case involves a “zero-sum game” is both irrelevant and
wrong. First, virtually all broker-dealer failures involve insolvent debtors that is indeed
the reason for the enactment of SIPA. Second, the SIPC Fund is designed to permit
recovery of a full $500,000 claim for every account. One customer’s receipt of the full
$500,000 from the SIPC Fund does not in any way reduce another customer’s payment
from the SIPC Fund. 11
Finally, SIPA and the Bankruptcy Code are not inequitable statutes, and applying
them in a manner consistent with their terms and customer expectations is the only fair
11

The SIPC Fund is obligated and able to satisfy all “net equity” claims in this case up to
$500,000. Indeed, the very purpose of SIPA was to establish “a substantial reserve fund to provide
protection to customers of broker-dealers to reinforce the confidence that investors have in the U.S.
securities markets.” New Times I, 371 F.3d at 84 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The
effect of the Trustee’s and SIPC’s approach to net equity, however, is to shift the losses caused by
BLMIS’s failure from the SIPC Fund – where Congress intended such losses to fall – to the broker’s
innocent customers.

10

outcome. “[E]quity in the law is the consistent application of legal rules. The definition
of inequity is unequal application of norms. The bankruptcy law treats pre-bankruptcy
claims of the same class equally. When one claimant gets treatment that is denied to
others, they have been treated inequitably.” Boston & Maine Corp. v. Chicago Pacific
Corp., 785 F.2d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1986) (emphasis in original). Indeed, upending the
lives of innocent customers in a manner totally inconsistent with years of legitimate
expectations is the essence of inequity. 12
2.

Claiming That All Customers Are Guilty Is No Justification

The Trustee and SIPC also argue that by permitting Madoff to exercise discretion
over their investments, the customers became liable for his fraud, and therefore the
customers’ contracts with BLMIS are void. (Tr. Br. at 48-49; SIPC Br. at 27-33.) The
Trustee’s and SIPC’s argument rests on a distortion of the holding in In re Adler,
Coleman Clearing Corp., 263 B.R. 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The critical fact in Adler,
Coleman was that the debtor was an innocent, third-party victim of a fraud perpetrated by
certain brokers and their complicit customers. See In re Adler, Coleman, 263 B.R. at
440, 442, 445, 462-64. Here, by contrast, BLMIS itself defrauded the customers. The
Trustee’s argument made while standing in BLMIS’s shoes that BLMIS owes the
customers less than the amount reflected on their account statements precisely because
BLMIS was defrauding them is absurd on its face and contrary to settled law. 13 New

12

The Trustee’s after-the-fact, ad hoc approach to determining “net equity” directly conflicts with
SIPA’s purpose of promoting investor confidence in the nation’s securities markets, because the approach
permits no certainty about its future application. See, e.g., Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate
Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 188-89 (1994) (observing that “shifting” legal standards that lack
“certainty and predictability” can “exact[] costs that may disserve the goals of fair dealing and efficiency in
the securities markets”).
13

The proposition that “the guilty party cannot take advantage of his own fraud to avoid his
obligation under the contract should the innocent party choose to enforce it” is “so elementary that a

11

Times I, for example, makes clear that a broker’s fraud does not make the customers’
securities contracts with the broker any less valid and enforceable against the broker. See
New Times I, 371 F.3d at 87-88.
To the extent the Trustee and SIPC contend that there are no customers, they are
incorrect. SIPA defines “customer” to include “any person who has deposited cash with
the debtor for the purpose of purchasing securities.” 14 15 U.S.C. § 78lll(2). The broker’s
fraud does not change the outcome; indeed, the statute’s definition of “customer”
specifically contemplates situations in which the broker defrauds the customer. See 15
U.S.C. § 78lll(2) (“customer” includes any person with a claim “arising out of sales or
conversions of such securities” (emphasis added)).
The further argument that BLMIS customers are not “customers” because BLMIS
was not acting “in the ordinary course of its business” is also wrong. (Tr. Br. at 45.) The
“ordinary course of business” requirement is intended to limit “customer” status to those
who had brokerage accounts with a broker, rather than to lenders or trade creditors. See,
e.g., In re Hanover Square Sec., 55 B.R. 235, 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985) (explaining
that 1978 amendments to SIPA, which added the “ordinary course” requirement, codify

citation of secondary authorities is sufficient.” Partridge v. Presley, 189 F.2d 645, 651 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
(citing 5 Williston, Contracts § 1488 (Rev. Ed.); 12 Am. Jur. Contracts § 146; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, 166).
Indeed, it is well established under New York law that an innocent party can affirm a contract with a party
that defrauded it and sue for damages. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Lion Holding, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 484, 49899 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
14

Citing 15 U.S.C. § 78fff-2(b), the Trustee and SIPC contend that BLMIS’s books and records
demonstrate that no trading occurred, and therefore no one has “customer” status. (Tr. Br. at 44-45; SIPC
Br. at 19.) But the Trustee distorts the plain language of Section 78fff-2(b). That section provides that
when a customer claims to be owed securities positions that are not reflected on an account statement or in
other books and records of the broker – which is not the case here – the customer must then use other
evidence to establish the claimed securities positions “to the satisfaction of the trustee.” 15 U.S.C. § 78fff2(b). There is no support in the statute for the Trustee’s argument that he is not bound by books and
records of the debtor – here, account statements – that clearly show what the broker said it owed to
customers.

12

cases concluding that lenders are not customers and clarifying that “customer” includes
“only a person who enjoys the type of fiduciary relationship with the debtor that
characterizes customers in general” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Finally, the Trustee and SIPC contend that SIPA does not provide insurance
against fraud. Again, they misstate the law. SIPA does not provide insurance in the
event that a customer is induced by fraud to purchase a security that then loses its value.
See, e.g., SIPC v. Charisma Sec. Corp., 371 F. Supp. 894, 899 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)
(stating that claims for market losses “are not included in the insurance umbrella afforded
by SIPC”). But the SIPC Fund was established precisely to compensate customers who
have been deprived of their securities positions through misappropriation, conversion,
or otherwise

by brokers who go bankrupt. See, e.g., SEC v. Packer, Wilbur & Co., 498

F.2d 978, 984 (2d Cir. 1974) (SIPA was designed to protect investors “who suffered
significant losses when a brokerage house collapsed, often because the house had in its
last days misappropriated the investor’s funds to its own use”). That the broker’s
collapse is brought about by fraud does not change the protections afforded to the
broker’s customers by SIPA.
For all of these reasons, BLMIS customers’ “net equity” claims equal the
liquidation value, as of the filing date, of the securities positions on the November 30,
2008 account statements. Accordingly, the Trustee’s motion must be denied.

13

II.
THE TRUSTEE HAS NO POWER TO AVOID
PAYMENTS TO INNOCENT CUSTOMERS
The Trustee and SIPC contend that fraudulent transfer law supports their “cashin/cash-out” approach to “net equity.” 15 The argument has no basis in the text of the
statute, which alone determines a customer’s “net equity.” In any event, the Trustee has
no power to avoid any prior payments that BLMIS made to innocent customers
(hereinafter, the “Transfers”).
First, Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes avoidance of any
Transfers made in connection with a securities contract, unless the Transfer was made
both (a) with actual fraudulent intent and (b) within two years of the filing date.
11 U.S.C. §§ 546(e), 548(a)(1)(A). Second, because the Transfers discharged antecedent
debts that BLMIS owed to its customers, they cannot be avoided as fraudulent.
A.

Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e)
Limits the Trustee’s Avoidance
Power to Section 548(a)(1)(A)
As a matter of law, the Trustee may not avoid any Transfer made prior to

December 11, 2006. Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in relevant part:
“Notwithstanding sections 544, 545, 547, 548(a)(1)(B), and 548(b) of this
title, the trustee may not avoid a transfer . . . that is a transfer made by or
to . . . [a] stockbroker [or] financial institution, . . . in connection with a
securities contract, as defined in section 741(7), . . . that is made before the
commencement of the case, except under section 548(a)(1)(A) of this
title.” 16 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

15

Because the Trustee and SIPC have raised avoidance arguments (Tr. Br. at 46-49; SIPC Br. 3437; Letter from David J. Sheehan, Esq., to the Court, dated Nov. 9, 2009), the Customers must respond.
16

Section 548(a)(1)(A) governs intentional fraudulent transfers. See Point II.B. infra.

14

A “securities contract” is defined broadly in Section 741(7) to include “a contract
for the purchase, sale or loan of a security . . . or option on any of the foregoing,
including an option to purchase or sell any such security.” 11 U.S.C. § 741(7)(A)(i). A
“securities contract” also includes “any other agreement or transaction that is similar to
an agreement or transaction” listed in Section 741(7)(A)(i)-(vi). 11 U.S.C.
§ 741(7)(A)(vii).
In Section 546, which provides exceptions from the fraudulent conveyance and
stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code for particular types of financial transactions and
instruments, Congress struck a balance between protection of the financial and securities
markets, on the one hand, and the avoidance of fraudulent transfers in bankruptcy, on the
other. See Bevill Bresler & Schulman Asset Mgmt. Corp. v. Spencer Savings & Loan
Ass’n, 878 F.2d 742, 751 (3rd Cir. 1989) (noting that Section 546 is at the intersection of
“two important national legislative policies [bankruptcy and securities law] . . . on a
collision course”).
This Court must enforce Section 546(e) “according to its terms.” Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000); see In re
Resorts Int’l, Inc., 181 F.3d 505, 516 (3rd Cir. 1999) (plain language of Section 546(e)
controls and prohibits avoidance of payments to shareholders in leveraged buyout
transaction); Contemporary Indus. Corp. v. Frost, 564 F.3d 981, 986-87 (8th Cir. 2009)
(same); In re QSI Holdings, Inc., 571 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir. 2009) (same). 17

17

These cases interpreted a previous version of Section 546(e), which protected “margin
payments” and “settlement payments” from a trustee’s avoidance powers. In December 2006, Congress
broadened the protection of Section 546(e) to include, in addition to “margin payments” and “settlement
payments,” any “transfer” made by or to a stockbroker or financial institution “in connection with a
securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

15

There is no dispute that BLMIS and the Customers entered into contracts for the
purchase and sale of securities. Friedman Decl. ¶¶ 3-5 & Exs. A-C. Nor can there be
any dispute that, in connection with those securities contracts, BLMIS made payments
from its account at JP Morgan Chase to the Customers’ bank account, also at JP Morgan
Chase. Id. ¶ 6. Accordingly, all of the elements of Section 546(e) are met, and no
avoidance claim may be asserted with respect to any Transfer occurring before December
11, 2006. Any claim relating to a Transfer after that date must meet the criteria of
Section 548(a)(1)(A), the intentional fraudulent transfer provision of the Bankruptcy
Code.
B.

The Trustee Cannot State Any
Claims Under Section 548(a)(1)(A)
Because BLMIS Was Legally
Obligated to Make the Transfers
The Trustee has no basis under Section 548(a)(1)(A) to avoid transfers from

BLMIS to customers.
To establish a claim for intentional fraudulent transfer, the Trustee must show that
the debtor “made such transfer . . . with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any
entity to which the debtor was or became, on or after the date that such transfer was made
. . ., indebted.” 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A). Here, the Transfers were made on account of
antecedent debts owed to specific customers. While BLMIS may have had unlawful
motives in making the Transfers, and while the Transfers may result in some customers
being preferred over others, a debtor’s “very plain desire to prefer, and thereby
incidentally to hinder creditors, is . . . not as a matter of law an intent obnoxious to

16

[fraudulent transfer law].” Richardson v. Germania Bank, 263 F. 320, 325 (2d Cir.
1919). 18
1.

The Transfers Satisfied Antecedent Debts Owed to Customers

BLMIS was required as a matter of state and federal law to transfer to the
customers the amounts owed to the customers as reflected on their account statements.
First, the customers entered into contracts with BLMIS pursuant to which the
customers would provide funds to BLMIS for the purpose of investing in securities,
BLMIS would purchase or sell such securities as authorized, and BLMIS would
ultimately pay proceeds to the customers. As a matter of contract law, BLMIS was
therefore liable to the customers for the total amounts on the customers’ account
statements. See, e.g., Visconsi v. Lehman Bros., 244 Fed. App’x 708, 711 (6th Cir.
2007); Harwood v. Int’l Estate Planners, 33 Fed. App’x 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2002)
(investor’s “agreement to entrust [securities broker] with her assets, coupled with the
account statements, constitutes sufficient evidence that an investment contract was
formed”); Scalp & Blade, Inc. v. Advest, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 219, 765 N.Y.S.2d 92 (4th
Dep’t 2003) (claims against investment advisor/securities broker seeking damages for
alleged mismanagement include cause of action for breach of contract).
In Visconsi, the customers deposited $21 million into their accounts at Lehman
Brothers, and withdrew $25.8 million over several years. Their broker eventually
admitted that he had operated a Ponzi scheme and that the customers’ actual account
18

See also Irving Trust Co. v. Chase Nat’l Bank, 65 F.2d 409, 410 (2d Cir. 1933) (“It is difficult to
imagine a preferential transfer which does not incidentally hinder and delay creditors, for, whenever an
insolvent debtor pays one of his creditors in full, he thereby puts the cash or property so used beyond the
reach of execution by the others. Pro tanto every preference hinders and delays them.”); In re Rubin Bros.
Footwear, Inc., 119 B.R. 416, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (“Mere intent to prefer one creditor over another,
although incidentally hindering or delaying creditors, will not establish a fraudulent transfer under section
548(a)(1).”)

17

balance was negative, not the $37.9 million listed on their account statements. The court
flatly rejected Lehman’s argument that, because they had withdrawn more than they had
invested, the plaintiffs could not recover the amount owed pursuant to their statements:
“Plaintiffs gave $21 million to [the broker], not to hide under a rock or
lock in a safe, but for the express purpose of investment, with a hope
indeed a reasonable expectation that it would grow. Thus, the out-ofpocket theory, which seeks to restore to Plaintiffs only the $21 million
they originally invested less their subsequent withdrawals, is a wholly
inadequate measure of damages. Had [the broker] invested Plaintiffs’
money as requested, their funds would have likely grown immensely. . . .
In fact, the fictitious statements issued by Lehman, which were designed
to track Plaintiffs’ funds as if they had been properly invested, indicate
that Plaintiffs’ accounts would have grown to more than $37.9 million. . . .
Plaintiffs thus . . . were entitled to the full $37.9 million balance shown,
regardless of the amounts of their previous deposits and withdrawals.”
Lehman, 244 Fed. App’x at 713-14.
See also Redstone v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 583 F. Supp. 74, 76-77 (D. Mass. 1984)
(denying motion to dismiss customers’ breach of contract claims against broker-dealer
seeking benefit-of-the-bargain damages); N.Y. U.C.C. § 8-501(b)(1) (“[A] person
acquires a security entitlement if a securities intermediary . . . indicates by book entry that
a financial asset has been credited to the person’s securities account . . .” (a “security
entitlement” means “the rights and property interest of an entitlement holder with respect
to a financial asset [including a security, see N.Y. U.C.C. § 8-102(a)(9)(i)] specified in
Part 5 [of Article 8],” N.Y. U.C.C. § 8-102(a)(17))).
Federal law also protected the customers’ claims for securities shown on their
statements, whether or not they were purchased. “[A] broker who accepts payment for
securities that he never intends to deliver . . . violates § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.” SEC v.
Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 819 (2002); see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v.
Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85 n.10 (2006) (same); Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1223-24
(11th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff “adequately pled fraud ‘in connection with the purchase or sale
18

of any security’ [under Rule 10b-5], even though he failed to identify any particular
security purchased, because Perazzo accepted and deposited Grippo’s monies as payment
for securities”); Nathel v. Siegal, 592 F. Supp. 2d 452, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“The
allegation that the Palace Defendants falsely promised to purchase securities when they
never intended to do so . . . is sufficient in pleading fraud ‘in connection with’ a purchase
of securities.”).
The federal securities laws gave rise to a right to receive payment in return for a
release of benefit-of-the-bargain claims. See, e.g., Osofsky v. Zipf, 645 F.2d 107, 114 (2d
Cir. 1981) (applying benefit-of-the-bargain damages under the 1934 Act); McMahan &
Co. v. Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc., 65 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (awarding lost
profits because “plaintiffs could establish benefit-of-the-bargain damages with reasonable
certainty”); Panos v. Island Gem Enters., 880 F. Supp. 169, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
(“[W]hen benefit-of-the-bargain damages can be measured with reasonable certainty and
those damages are traceable to a defendant’s fraud, courts are free to award them.”).
Finally, in New York, a “broker who has discretionary powers over an account
owes his client fiduciary duties.” Lowenbraun v. L.F. Rothschild, 685 F. Supp. 336, 343
(S.D.N.Y. 1988). “The law is well settled that where a customer deposits with brokers
moneys to be used in the purchase of securities, a fiduciary relationship arises between
them.” Lipkien v. Krinski, 192 A.D. 257, 263, 182 N.Y.S. 454 (1st Dep’t 1920). “This
impose[s] upon [the broker] broad fiduciary duties to plaintiff with respect to the
management of the account.” Howell v. Freifeld, 631 F. Supp. 1222, 1224 (S.D.N.Y.
1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where such a relationship exists, a broker’s
failure to invest in securities, thereby “abusing the position as broker-agent to gain profits

19

at the client’s expense,” gives rise to a damages claim against the faithless fiduciary.
Lowenbraun, 685 F. Supp. at 343; see also 105 East Second Street Assoc. v. Bobrow, 175
A.D.2d 746, 746-47, 573 N.Y.S.2d 503, 504 (1st Dep’t 1991) (damages for breach of
fiduciary duties include “lost opportunities for profit . . . by reason of the faithless
fiduciary’s conduct”); Levy v. Bessemer Trust Co., No. 97 Civ. 1785, 1999 WL 199027,
at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 1999) (“Under New York law, lost profits are available on breach
of fiduciary duty claims.”).
Therefore, BLMIS was obligated as a matter of law to transfer funds to the
customers, and when the customers received the Transfers, they contemporaneously
released corresponding claims that they held under contract law, securities law, and
fiduciary duty law. This dollar-for-dollar satisfaction of the antecedent debts owed by
BLMIS to the customers constituted “fair consideration” and “reasonably equivalent
value” under New York law and Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, respectively. 19

19

Accordingly, even if Section 546(e) did not apply, the Trustee could not state a claim for
constructive fraudulent transfer under the Bankruptcy Code or New York law. To state a claim for
constructive fraudulent transfer under Section 548(a)(1)(B), the Trustee must establish, in addition to
insolvency at the time of the transfer, that BLMIS made a transfer and “received less than a reasonably
equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation.” 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B). Likewise, under
Section 544 of the Code, applying New York law, the Trustee must establish that the challenged transfer
was made “without a fair consideration.” N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 273.
A transfer that satisfies an antecedent debt cannot be constructively fraudulent. The Bankruptcy
Code expressly defines “value” to include the “satisfaction or securing of a present or antecedent debt of
the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 548(d)(2)(A). New York law provides that “[f]air consideration is given for
property . . . [w]hen in exchange for such property . . . as a fair equivalent therefor, and in good faith,
property is conveyed or an antecedent debt is satisfied.” N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 272. New York law
defines “debt” broadly to include “any legal liability, whether matured or unmatured, liquidated or
unliquidated, absolute, fixed or contingent.” N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 270. The Bankruptcy Code
similarly defines “debt” to mean “liability on a claim,” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12), and “claim” is defined to
include a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated,
fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.”
11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).

20

2.

No Intentional Fraud Can Be Alleged Where a Transfer Satisfied
Antecedent Debt

No intentional fraud claim may be stated, regardless of BLMIS’s intent, with
respect to a Transfer that satisfied an antecedent debt owed to a customer.
As noted, Section 548(a)(1)(A) is excepted from Section 546(e). It states:
“The trustee may avoid any transfer . . . of an interest of the debtor in property . . .
that was made or incurred on or within 2 years before the date of the filing of the
petition, if the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily
(A) made such transfer . . . with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any
entity to which the debtor was or became, on or after the date that such transfer
was made . . ., indebted[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1).
An intent to “hinder, delay, or defraud” is demonstrated when the debtor transfers
assets beyond the reach of all of its creditors, not when the debtor transfers an asset to a
legitimate creditor. See, e.g., Van Iderstine v. National Discount Co., 227 U.S. 575, 582
(1913) (transfers are intentionally fraudulent when the debtor “intends to hinder and
delay [its creditors] as a class”); In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 813 F.2d 1177, 1181
(11th Cir. 1987) (“Fraudulent transfers are avoidable because they diminish the assets of
the debtor to the detriment of all creditors.”).
A transfer to a legitimate creditor may be avoided, if at all, only as a preference.
“[T]he preferential repayment of pre-existing debts to some creditors does not constitute
a fraudulent conveyance, whether or not it prejudices other creditors, because ‘[t]he basic
object of fraudulent conveyance law is to see that the debtor uses his limited assets to
satisfy some of his creditors; it normally does not try to choose among them.’” HBE
Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623, 634 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Boston Trading Group,
Inc. v. Burnazos, 835 F.2d 1504, 1509 (1st Cir. 1987)). “A preference merely violates the
bankruptcy rule of equal distribution among all creditors. A fraudulent transfer goes
21

further. By a fraudulent transfer, the debtor places its assets beyond the reach of its
creditors.” 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 547.01 (15th ed.). As the Supreme Court long ago
cautioned,“[a]n attempt to prefer is not to be confounded with an attempt to defraud, nor
a preferential transfer with a fraudulent one.” Coder v. Arts, 213 U.S. 223, 241 (1909).
Cunningham, the case proffered by the Trustee and SIPC as justification for their
“equality is equity” approach, is a case applying the preference provision of the former
Bankruptcy Act. In Cunningham, the bankruptcy trustee for Charles Ponzi was seeking
to avoid preferential transfers to victims that had occurred during the preference period.
The Supreme Court espoused the bankruptcy policy of equality given effect by the
preference provision:
“After August 2d, the victims of Ponzi were not to be divided into two
classes, those who rescinded for fraud and those who were relying on his
contract to pay them. They were all of one class, actuated by the same
purpose to save themselves from the effect of Ponzi’s insolvency. Whether
they sought to rescind or sought to get their money as by the terms of the
contract, they were, in their inability to identify their payments, creditors,
and nothing more. It is a case the circumstances of which call strongly for
the principle that equality is equity, and this is the spirit of the bankrupt
law. Those who were successful in the race of diligence violated not only
its spirit, but its letter, and secured an unlawful preference.” Cunningham,
265 U.S. at 13.
Cunningham provides no support for the avoidance of transfers by BLMIS to innocent
customers that occurred more than 90 days before BLMIS’s SIPA filing. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 547(b).
Fraudulent transfer law, by contrast, is not directed to leveling payments to
creditors. Its objective is to recover assets that an insolvent debtor transferred for less
than fair value. “[T]he intent of fraudulent conveyance statutes is not to provide equal
distribution of the estates of debtors among their creditors.” Boston Trading Group, 835
F.2d at 1509 (quoting 1 G. Glenn, Fraudulent Conveyances and Preferences, § 289 (rev.
22

ed. 1940)). Fraudulent transfer law is instead “a set of legal (not equitable) doctrines
designed for very different purposes.” Id. at 1508. The Supreme Court has thus observed
that fraudulent transfer actions “more nearly resemble state-law contract claims brought
by a bankrupt corporation to augment the bankruptcy estate than they do creditors’
hierarchically ordered claims to a pro rata share of the bankruptcy res.” Granfinanciera,
S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 56 (1989). 20
The Second Circuit has expressly held that a transfer on account of antecedent
debt is not a fraudulent transfer, regardless of the mental state or intent of the transferor.
In In re Sharp International Corp., 403 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2005), a lender began to suspect
Sharp of fraud, and demanded that Sharp repay its loan. Sharp fraudulently induced
investments from unsuspecting investors, some of which were then used to repay the debt
to Sharp. Id. at 47-48. The Second Circuit ruled that Sharp’s payment to State Street
constituted a preference, but not a fraudulent conveyance. A “‘conveyance which
satisfies an antecedent debt made while the debtor is insolvent is neither fraudulent nor
otherwise improper, even if its effect is to prefer one creditor over another.’” Id. at 54
(quoting Ultramar Energy, Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 191 A.D.2d 86, 90-91,
599 N.Y.S.2d 816 (1st Dep’t 1993)).
That Sharp defrauded new investors to raise money to pay State Street even if
State Street knew about that fraud did not change the fact that the transfer to State

20

Fraudulent transfer laws have specific statutes of limitation – two years under federal law, and
six years under New York law – that restrict the period during which transfers may be avoided. Even if any
avoidance provision were applicable to the Transfers, it would permit avoidance only within the relevant
period. The customer’s account statement immediately preceding that period would reflect the customer’s
equity at the start of the period. The Trustee’s “cash-in/cash-out” approach ignores these temporal
limitations on his avoidance power.

23

Street “was at most a preference between creditors and did not ‘hinder, delay, or defraud
either present or future creditors.’” Sharp, 403 F.3d at 56. 21
“The nub of the complaint is that State Street knew that there would likely
be victims of the [Sharp principals’] fraud, and arranged not to be among
them. On the one hand, this seems repugnant; on the other hand, [State
Street’s] discovery that Sharp was rife with fraud was an asset of State
Street, and State Street had a fiduciary duty to use that asset to protect its
own shareholders, if it legally could. One could say that State Street failed
to tell someone that his coat was on fire; or one could say that it simply
grabbed a seat when it heard the music stop. The moral analysis
contributes little.” Sharp, 403 F. 3d at 52.
Ponzi schemes are not different they are frauds like any other and indeed other
courts in this Circuit have recognized that a payment to an innocent creditor in a Ponzi
scheme cannot be avoided as fraudulent if the payment satisfied an antecedent debt. For
example, in In re Carrozzella & Richardson, 286 B.R. 480, 491 (D. Conn. 2002),
creditors had a contractual right to both the principal and the profits that the Ponzi
scheme debtor had transferred to them. The court thus concluded that payment of profits
could not be avoided as fraudulent, because “[i]n exchange for the [profits] paid to the
Defendants, the Debtor received a dollar-for-dollar forgiveness of a contractual debt.” Id.
at 491. Similarly, in Unified Commercial Capital, both the district court and the
bankruptcy court concluded that transfers of profit to innocent Ponzi scheme investors
could not be avoided as fraudulent because the creditors had a contractual right to the
profits. See In re Unified Commercial Capital, Nos. 01-MBK-6004L, 01-MBK-6005L,
21

This Court has held that margin payments to Bear Stearns by a fraudulent fund were subject to
avoidance under Section 548(a)(1)(A) despite the Sharp case, finding that Sharp is inapplicable where a
complaint alleged that the targeted payments resulted in an increase, rather than a decrease, in the debtor’s
total liabilities, and because Sharp was based on New York law imported by Section 544 rather than on
Section 548(a)(1)(A). See In re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd., 310 B.R. 500, 507-09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2002), aff'd 397 B.R. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Here, there can be no dispute that BLMIS had valid debt
obligations to innocent Customers, payment of which reduced its overall liabilities. The Customers also
respectfully suggest that Sharp’s conclusion that payment of valid antecedent debt may not be an avoidable
fraudulent transfer is applicable to claims under Section 548(a)(1)(A).

24

2002 WL 32500567, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. June 21, 2002) (rejecting trustee’s effort to claw
back profits from “an innocent investor, who has received a bargained-for, contractual
interest payment, at a commercially reasonable rate”); In re Unified Commercial Capital,
260 B.R. 343, 351 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2001).
Notwithstanding the Second Circuit’s decision in Sharp, some courts have applied
the so-called “Ponzi scheme presumption,” but only where the transfer at issue did not
satisfy antecedent debt. See In re Bayou Group, LLC, 362 B.R. 624, 638 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2007) (concluding that equity holders as opposed to creditors of the
fraudulent enterprise did not have contractual rights to payments on their investments,
“[i]n contrast to the lawful and disclosed payment of a valid contractual antecedent debt
in Sharp”); In re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd., 397 B.R. 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
(distinguishing Sharp on the ground that the transfers to Bear Stearns did not repay loans
or services or satisfy other antecedent debts).
“Simply because a debtor conducts its business fraudulently does not
make every single payment by the debtor subject to avoidance. If so,
every vendor supplying goods to the debtor would receive an avoidable
fraudulent transfer when the debtor paid the vendor’s invoice. Every
employee, even lower-level custodial and clerical employees, would be
required to return their wages, regardless of the work they performed.
Landlords would have to return rent payments, even if the debtor actually
occupied the leased premises. No one conducting business with a debtor
operating a Ponzi scheme could prevent the avoidance of payments they
received from the debtor, regardless of the extent of the transferee’s
knowledge or culpability or the actual services provided. The law does
not require this result.” In re World Vision Entm’t, Inc., 275 B.R. 641,
658 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002).
Some courts have invoked “equity” or “morality” or “public policy” to justify
avoiding transfers of profits to Ponzi scheme victims, even though the transfers were
contractually required or otherwise legally mandated. See, e.g., Donell v. Kowell, 533
F.3d 762, 776 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that transfers of profits to Ponzi scheme
25

victims are avoidable because it “is more equitable”); Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750,
756-57 (7th Cir. 1995) (in a receivership case, concluding that transferees had legal claim
to profit but not a “moral” claim); In re Indep. Clearing House Co., 77 B.R. 843, 858 (D.
Utah 1987) (concluding that it was in “the interest of the public” to void valid antecedent
debts that the debtor owed to transferees for profits). 22
These cases rest on the notion that courts can ignore or alter what the law would
otherwise require so as to redistribute assets “equitably.” But the Supreme Court has
expressly rejected an “expansive view of equity” that invokes “‘the grand aims of equity,’
and asserts a general power to grant relief whenever legal remedies are not ‘practical and
efficient,’ unless there is a statute to the contrary.” Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A.
v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 321 (1999). “When there are indeed new
conditions that might call for a wrenching departure from past practice, Congress is in a
much better position than [the courts] both to perceive them and to design the appropriate
remedy.” Id. at 322. Moreover, the Second Circuit specifically instructed in Sharp that
“moral analysis contributes little” to fraudulent transfer analysis. See Sharp, 403 F.3d at
52.
For just these reasons, the bankruptcy court in Unified Commercial Capital
properly rejected cases like Scholes, Donell, and Independent Clearing House, observing:
“By forcing the square peg facts of a ‘Ponzi’ scheme into the round holes
of the fraudulent conveyance statutes in order to accomplish a further
reallocation and redistribution to implement a policy of equality of
distribution in the name of equity, . . . many courts have done substantial
22

See also In re Hedged-Investments Associates, Inc., 84 F.3d 1286, 1290 (10th Cir. 1996)
(refusing to follow “ordinary” rule that contractual right to profits should be respected); In re Moore, 39
B.R. 571, 574-75 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1984) (asserting that “equity” supports clawback of profits that debtor
owed transferee); In re Taubman, 160 B.R. 964, 985-86 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993) (acknowledging
transferees’ contractual right to profits received, but relying on Independent Clearing House in refusing to
recognize antecedent debt satisfied by transfer).

26

injustice to those statutes and have made policy decisions that should be
made by Congress.” Unified Commercial Capital, 260 B.R. at 350.
Because the Transfers discharged antecedent debts that BLMIS owed to its
customers, the Transfers may not be avoided as fraudulent, even if the Transfers were
part of a Ponzi scheme.

27

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons discussed above, this Court must deny the Trustee’s motion
and rule that BLMIS customers’ “net equity” claims equal the market value, as of the
filing date, of the securities positions reflected on the customers’ November 30, 2008
account statements, and that no avoidance provision may be applied to the Transfers in
order to reduce “net equity” or for any other purpose.
Dated: New York, New York
November 12, 2009
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
By: /s/ Karen E. Wagner
Karen E. Wagner
Denis J. McInerney
Jonathan D. Martin
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
[phone]
Attorneys for Sterling Equities Associates
and Certain Affiliates

28