Second Circuit Backs Foreign Clawback Claims in Madoff Bankruptcy Action
by | posted in: Bankruptcy Administration and Jurisdiction, fraudulent transfer | 0

By Adam J. Goldberg, Christopher Harris, Robert J. Malionek, Kevin L. Mallen (Latham & Watkins)

In In re Picard, Tr. for Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, No. 17-2992(L), 2019 WL 903978 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2019), the Second Circuit held that the trustee administering Bernie Madoff’s insolvent estate could use Section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to claw back purely foreign transactions between foreign entities. The money at issue had been initially transferred by Madoff to foreign funds, then subsequently transferred by the foreign funds to the foreign defendants. The defendants argued that the Madoff trustee’s clawback claims were barred by the presumption against extraterritoriality and the principles of international comity.

While the Southern District of New York had focused its analysis on the subsequent transfers by the foreign funds to the foreign defendants, the Second Circuit focused on the initial transfer from Madoff to the foreign funds when determining whether the subsequent transfers could be recovered. The Second Circuit reasoned that since the initial transfers were from New York-based Madoff, the presumption against extraterritoriality and the principles of international comity did not bar the Madoff trustee’s attempts to recover these foreign subsequent transfers.  In so holding, the Second Circuit reversed the Southern District of New York’s prior ruling that such foreign transfers could not be recovered, and removed a protection for foreign investors who may not have anticipated that their investments — and their returns — could otherwise be subject to clawback under US law.

The full article is available here.

The Weakest Link in Intercreditor Agreements Breaks Again in Momentive
by | posted in: Valuation | 0

By Lawrence Safran, Mitchell A. Seider, Keith A. Simon, and Adam J. Goldberg of Latham & Watkins LLP

Intercreditor agreements among secured creditors with respect to common collateral are often limited to lien subordination, as opposed to claim subordination. The agreement governs each secured creditor’s rights over the common collateral, without imposing claim subordination, which would require junior creditors to subordinate their claims and turn over all of their recoveries, whether or not derived from proceeds of collateral. Intercreditor agreements that provide only for lien subordination typically include a reservation of rights for junior creditors to retain all of their rights as unsecured creditors; however, the formulation of this reservation varies from agreement to agreement, and the exact language used can be critical in a court’s analysis.

The recent decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (Momentive) reflects the emerging trend of courts to narrowly interpret restrictions on junior creditors in these intercreditor agreements, where the restrictions are ancillary to the distribution of the common collateral’s value. In Momentive, the Bankruptcy Court found that the general reservation of rights as unsecured creditors serves to “ameliorate obligations that [junior secured creditors have] undertaken elsewhere in the agreement.”

This article explores recent case law arising from disputes over intercreditor agreements before bankruptcy courts, the issues and rulings in Momentive, and lessons that market participants should draw from the decision.

To read more, click here.