503 B.R. 348, 372-73 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014), as corrected (Jan.
16, 2014). In Lyondell,
the bankruptcy court recognized the presumption that “the historic police powers of the
States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress” and that, because “the States have traditionally occupied the
field of fraudulent transfer law,” “applying the presumption against preemption is therefore
appropriate.” In Lyondell, the court found section 546(e) inapplicable as to “LBO payments to stockholders at the very end of the asset transfer chain, where the stockholders
are the ultimate beneficiaries of the constructively fraudulent transfers, and can give the
money back to injured creditors with no damage to anyone but themselves.” Id.
The Delaware bankruptcy court similarly found that policy reasons supported its finding
that preemption was inappropriate. As was the case in Lyondell, the Physiotherapy court
found that permitting the trustee to pursue the state law fraudulent transfer claims (which
do not involve, for example, any swap transactions or commodities trading, but which,
here, involved transactions with non-publicly traded securities) would not implicate the
concerns that the safe harbor provisions are to meant to protect, i.e., transactions that
have a destabilizing “ripple effect” on the financial markets.
The court also seemed to be
swayed (at least in part) by the alleged bad faith of the shareholders, who purportedly
controlled the debtor and its board of directors and, therefore, may have been involved
with or authorized the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint.
The court clarified that section 546(e) would not prevent the trustee from asserting state
law fraudulent transfer claims in the capacity of a creditor-assignee when “(1) the transaction sought to be avoided poses no threat of ‘ripple effects’ in the relevant securities
markets; (2) the transferees received payment for non-public securities, and (3) the transferees were corporate insiders that allegedly acted in bad faith.”
The court also allowed the trustee’s federal and state intentional fraudulent transfer
claims to proceed (such claims are expressly not subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe
harbor provisions) and dismissed the Trustee’s remaining constructive fraudulent transfer claims brought under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code (as these claims
were shielded by section 546(e)).
The implications of the Delaware bankruptcy court’s noteworthy departure from the Second Circuit’s Tribune decision is an interesting development and one that is likely to spark
further debate and litigation, including, perhaps, an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Berwyn | Boston | Detroit | Harrisburg | Los Angeles | New York | Orange County | Philadelphia | Pittsburgh | Princeton
Silicon Valley | Washington | Wilmington pepperlaw.com
.