New York Court Denies Trustee’s Motion to Re-Argue the Dismissal of the Pre-2001 Claims
Sec. Inv’r Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, Nos. 08-01789 (SMB), 10-05421 (SMB), 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3757 (U.S. Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2016)
Trustee Irving H. Picard brought the adversary proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), and as representative of the substantively consolidated estate of Debtor Bernard L. Madoff, to avoid and recover transfers made to the accountants, Frank Avellino and Michael Bienes. The two auditors urged a New York bankruptcy judge last month to deny the motion of the Trustee to reargue these clawback claims against them as they were already dismissed earlier in July. The accountants urged the court to reject the trustee’s motion to re-argue as the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims for the fraudulent transfers which occurred before January 1, 2001. The Court agreed with the accountants and rejected the Trustee’s motion to reargue the dismissal of pre -2001 claims. The Court held that the SIPA Trustee, as trustee of BLMIS, could recover transfers of customer property under SIPA but the Chapter 7 Trustee could not. The Trustee’s argument that a SIPA’s protective order covered the individual debtor as well as his LLC because they used the same SEC registration number lacked support. Next, an order consolidating individual debtor and LLC’s bankruptcy cases did not authorize SIPA trustee to assert avoiding powers against transfers made by the individual debtor. Finally, the Court ruled that there was no manifest injustice and held for the accountants.
Neither Intent nor Motive of the Parties is Relevant Under § 547(b).
Chapter 7 Tr. of Big Apple Volkswagen, LLC v. Salim (In re Big Apple Volkswagen),…Read More
Failure of Proof Regarding the Fifth Element Under §547(b) (5) Precluded Judgment For Trustee
Johns v. First Cmty. Bank (In re Trent), Nos. 2:14-bk-20526, 2:15-ap-02035, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 407…Read More
Trustee Avoids the Transfer as Preference As the Debtor was Insolvent at the Time the Alleged Transfers Were Made
Lanik v. Smith (In re Cox Motor Express of Greensboro, Inc.), Nos. 14-10468, 15-02023, 2017…Read More
Intraday Overdrafts by Banks Do Not Give Rise to an Antecedent Debt
Sarachek v. Luana Sav. Bank (In re Agriprocessors, Inc.), No. 15-CV-1015-LRR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS…Read More