Extraterritorial Avoidance Actions: Lessons from Madoff

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2014)

17 Pages Posted: 30 Sep 2016

Date Written: May 4, 2015

Abstract

The Madoff case provided fertile ground for testing boundaries of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This paper looks at one boundary-testing dispute that forced the SDNY District Court to assess the extraterritorial reach of rules governing recovery of fraudulent transfers. The trustee for the Madoff estate sought to recover property that had been transferred from Madoff’s Ponzi scheme to offshore feeder funds, which in turn transferred the property to customers located abroad. The SDNY court stopped the trustee. In its view, the trustee was seeking extraterritorial application of Section 550, that the text of this section does not overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality, and that the doctrine of comity counseled against extraterritorial application. In this paper, I argue that the court probably reached the wrong conclusion. Not only does the court’s decision create a loophole in avoidance actions and have other odd implications, but the Code itself points to the opposite conclusion.

Keywords: bankruptcy, extraterritoriality, comity, fraudulent transfers, avoidance actions, Madoff

JEL Classification: K22, K40

Suggested Citation

Morrison, Edward R., Extraterritorial Avoidance Actions: Lessons from Madoff (May 4, 2015). Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2845513

Edward R. Morrison (Contact Author)

Columbia Law School ( email )

435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
53
Abstract Views
462
rank
407,587
PlumX Metrics