{"id":3971,"date":"2015-03-08T17:17:37","date_gmt":"2015-03-08T21:17:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/?p=3971"},"modified":"2016-07-04T22:37:25","modified_gmt":"2016-07-05T02:37:25","slug":"fatally-foreign-extraterritorial-recovery-of-avoidable-transfers-and-principals-of-comity-in-the-madoff-securities-sipa-liquidation-proceeding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/fatally-foreign-extraterritorial-recovery-of-avoidable-transfers-and-principals-of-comity-in-the-madoff-securities-sipa-liquidation-proceeding\/","title":{"rendered":"Fatally Foreign: Extraterritorial Recovery of Avoidable Transfers and Principles of Comity in the Madoff Securities SIPA Liquidation Proceeding"},"content":{"rendered":"

Download PDF<\/a><\/p>\n

Timothy Graulich, Brian M. Resnick, and Kevin J. Coco*<\/a><\/p>\n

Bernie Madoff\u2019s investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (Madoff Securities), famously imploded in December 2008 under the weight of the largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history.[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Some of Madoff\u2019s largest customers were offshore \u201cfeeder funds\u201d that pooled capital from various investors around the world principally in order to \u201cfeed\u201d investments into Madoff Securities. In many cases the vast majority, or all, of the capital in the feeder funds was channeled directly to, and as investments in, Madoff Securities. When feeder funds received distributions from Madoff Securities, they would often in turn distribute assets to their own customers, many of whom were foreign institutions and individuals. In an important recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court dismissed recovery claims asserted by the Madoff Securities trustee against foreign subsequent transferees that had received distributions from foreign Madoff feeder funds on the basis that section 550(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code[2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> does not apply extraterritorially under the circumstances and, alternatively, international comity considerations prohibit recovery from these foreign entities.<\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Cross-Border Clawbacks<\/strong><\/p>\n

The trustee appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) to administer the Madoff Securities estate has engaged in a multiyear global effort to recoup funds for the estate\u2019s customers and creditors using the powers of SIPA and the Bankruptcy Code.[3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> This effort extended to several offshore feeder funds that received distributions from Madoff Securities, many of which are subject to liquidation proceedings in their respective foreign jurisdictions. In addition to claims against the feeder funds themselves, the Trustee brought avoidance and recovery actions against the foreign customers of the funds that had received subsequent distributions. As a statutory matter, the Trustee pursued clawbacks against these foreign subsequent transferees under section 550(a)(2),[4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> which allows a trustee to recover property that is the subject of an avoided transfer from \u201cany immediate or mediate transferee\u201d of an initial transferee. The foreign subsequent transferees moved to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted their request and consolidated the cases with respect to the issue of whether section 550(a)(2), as incorporated into SIPA, applies extraterritorially such that the Trustee can recover transfers made from foreign feeder funds to foreign investors in those funds.[5]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Extraterritorial Applications<\/strong><\/p>\n

The foreign subsequent transferees moved to dismiss the Trustee\u2019s complaints on the basis that section 550(a)(2) does not apply extraterritorially and therefore cannot be used by the Trustee to claw back transfers made abroad by a foreign feeder fund to its foreign customer. In the consolidated case, Securities Investor Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC<\/em>,[6] Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted the motion to dismiss, holding that (i)\u00a0the application of 550(a)(2) to the particular facts of the case would constitute an extraterritorial application of the statute,[7]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> (ii)\u00a0Congress did not clearly intend such an application,[8] and (iii)\u00a0even if the statute could be applied extraterritorially, principals of international comity would preclude such an application under the circumstances.[9]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Judge Rakoff began his opinion by recalling the longstanding presumption that congressional legislation is meant to apply only within the United States in the absence of contrary intent.[10]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. Nat\u2019l Australia Bank Ltd.<\/em>,[11]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Judge Rakoff wrote that the court must first determine whether the factual circumstances of the case require extraterritorial (as opposed to domestic) application of the relevant statute.[12]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In answering \u201cyes\u201d to this inquiry, Judge Rakoff evaluated the \u201cfocus\u201d of the transactions that section 550(a) seeks to regulate.[13]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> For their part, the Trustee and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) interpreted the inquiry broadly by arguing that the focus in a SIPA liquidation is the domestic broker-dealer and the maximization of its assets, meaning that any application of section 550(a) and other Bankruptcy Code provisions incorporated into SIPA is inherently domestic.[14]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Judge Rakoff rejected this approach in favor of the more specific interpretation advocated by the defendants, which analyzes the regulatory focus of section 550(a).[15]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The statute focuses on the nature of the transactions at issue \u2013 here, transfers between foreign parties abroad, rather than the U.S. debtor more generally, leading the court to conclude that the Trustee\u2019s attempted recovery of the \u201cpredominantly foreign\u201d transactions would require an extraterritorial application of section 550(a).[16]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The court repeatedly highlighted the foreign-to-foreign aspect of the transfers and the fact that they did not come directly from the U.S. debtor.[17]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Congressional Intent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The second step of the Morrison<\/em> analysis is whether Congress intended the statute to apply extraterritorially. Under Morrison<\/em>, the congressional intent must be affirmative and clear in order to overcome the presumption.[18]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The Trustee and SIPC had argued that, although extraterritorial intent is not present in the plain language of section 550(a), the court should look to section 541(a)[19]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> for statutory context, which provides that \u201cproperty of the estate\u201d is estate property \u201cwherever located and by whomever held,\u201d and is understood generally to apply regardless of whether the property is present in the United States.[20]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> According to the Trustee and SIPC, the words \u201cwherever located and by whomever held\u201d are incorporated into the Bankruptcy Code\u2019s avoidance and recovery provisions, meaning that Congress intended section 550(a) to apply extraterritorially.[21]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The court dismissed this argument as \u201cclever [but] neither logical nor persuasive\u201d and cited Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent to explain that \u201cfraudulently transferred property becomes property of the estate only after it has been recovered by the Trustee.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Responding to the Trustee\u2019s policy-based contention that refusing to apply section 550(a) extraterritorially would permit a U.S. debtor to transfer its assets abroad and then retransfer them to another foreign entity, thus escaping liability, the court noted that such concerns \u201cmust be balanced against the presumption against extraterritoriality[,]\u201d which is intended to avoid international conflict.[23]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The court ultimately held that the Trustee had not adequately rebutted the presumption against extraterritoriality and was therefore prohibited from utilizing section 550(a) to recover transfers to the foreign investors of the offshore feeder funds.[24]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Comity Matters<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an alternative ruling, Judge Rakoff determined that even if the Trustee were to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality, recovery from the foreign subsequent transferees in this case would be prohibited by considerations of international comity.[25]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> International comity is \u201cthe recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation.\u201d[26]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In the United States, comity requires a comparison of U.S. interests against foreign interests. Here, the court recognized that many of the other Madoff feeder funds are subject to liquidation proceedings in their home countries where their own avoidance and recovery statutes govern.[27]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> As the defendants noted in their briefing, the British Virgin Islands trial court and appellate court had already addressed, and rejected, one feeder fund liquidator\u2019s attempt to recover these same transfers pursuant to local common law.[28]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The defendants criticized the Trustee\u2019s approach as seeking a type of unfair double recovery, arguing that the Trustee should not be permitted to first recover initial transfers to the feeder funds and then recover subsequent transfers to the feeder fund\u2019s customers, but rather should be required to stand in line alongside the feeder fund customers and share as a creditor of the feeder fund\u2019s estate.[29]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> On the other hand, SIPC focused on U.S. interests in stating that comity is not implicated where the Trustee attempts to recover property stolen from investors in a U.S. broker-dealer as part of a Ponzi scheme with its \u201ccenter of gravity\u201d in the U.S.[30]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In the end, Judge Rakoff agreed with the defendants with respect to the comity issue, describing the proceedings before him as an attempt by the Trustee to \u201creach around\u201d the foreign proceedings and pull in foreign investors with no direct relationship to the U.S. estate and no reason to expect that U.S. law would apply to distributions received from foreign investment funds.[31]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

V.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 International Deference<\/strong><\/p>\n

Comity is an influential thread woven throughout Judge Rakoff\u2019s opinion. Indeed, the longstanding presumption against extraterritoriality, which the Madoff<\/em> court established as its analytical starting point, is itself a comity-based rule that was recognized more than twenty years ago by the Supreme Court as an effort to \u201cprotect against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord.\u201d[32]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Judge Rakoff repeated this principle in finding that section 550(a)(2) does not apply extraterritorially, further commenting that the Trustee\u2019s proposed actions \u201ccould raise serious issues of international comity.\u201d[33]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

More broadly, the Madoff<\/em> decision illustrates a growing (albeit not universal) trend in both U.S. and non-U.S. courts\u2019 willingness to employ comity principles to address cross-border insolvency disputes. Beginning with the 1996 In re<\/em> Maxwell Communications Corp.<\/em>[34]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> case, in which the U.S. bankruptcy judge cooperated effectively with her U.K. counterpart to improvise and implement a cross-border protocol between simultaneous bankruptcy cases,[35]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> courts in many countries have moved toward a practice that substantially defers to the insolvency laws of the home country. This trend follows the Second Circuit\u2019s observation in the Maxwell<\/em> decision that \u201c[c]omity is especially important in the context of the Bankruptcy Code.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The Maxwell<\/em> case initiated a series of discussions and decisions endorsing the doctrine of universalism, which posits that a single set of governing rules promotes market symmetry, or that, since modern markets are global, the same legal rules should apply in a consistent manner across borders.[37]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Eventually, in 1997, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law promulgated the Model Law on cross-border insolvency, which employs universalism and comity as its guiding principles.[38]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Since then, more than twenty countries have adopted some version of the Model Law, including the United States Congress when it passed chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005.[39]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Madoff<\/em> decision reflects a universalist approach and courts\u2019 growing hesitation to reach over international borders where competing insolvency regimes govern. Universalism seeks not only to defer to the laws of the country with the greater interest but also recognizes that economic actors, when transacting, have a right to rely on their expectation that the \u201chome\u201d jurisdiction\u2019s laws will govern.[40]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Otherwise, global markets may suffer from unpredictability, inefficiency and, some would argue, unfairness.<\/p>\n

VI.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Further Applications<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Madoff<\/em> ruling should give a measure of comfort to foreign customers of foreign investment funds regarding the ability of a U.S. trustee to utilize U.S. bankruptcy law to claw back their distributions. However, in exploring potential future applications of Judge Rakoff\u2019s Madoff<\/em> decision, it is useful to consider whether a slight change in circumstances would lead to a different outcome. For instance, consider a situation where an offshore feeder fund is created by a U.S. broker-dealer for the purpose of helping investors avoid U.S. taxes. In that case, a trustee could argue that the feeder fund is a \u201csham entity\u201d and seek a ruling from the U.S. bankruptcy court that the offshore entity and U.S. entity should be treated together as a single estate pursuant to a substantive consolidation or alter ego theory. Accordingly, if the offshore fund made distributions to its foreign customers, the trustee may argue that such transfers were not foreign-to-foreign transactions as in Madoff<\/em> but instead U.S.-to-foreign transfers that are recoverable under a purely domestic application of section 550(a).[41]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Just three days prior to the Madoff<\/em> decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed a similar scenario in Kismet Acquisition, LLC v. Icenhower<\/em>.[42]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In Icenhower<\/em>, a U.S. debtor transferred a Mexican coastal villa to a Nevada shell company during the pre-petition period and then, post-petition, the shell company sold the asset to a Mexican couple.[43]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The Ninth Circuit upheld the rulings of both lower courts, confirming that the shell company was the alter ego of the debtor and should be substantively consolidated with the bankruptcy estate.[44]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,[45]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> which permits a trustee to avoid post-petition transfers of property of the estate, applied in this case. As a result of the substantive consolidation finding, property of the debtor\u2019s estate as of the petition date included the villa in the hands of the shell company and the successor to the trustee was able to claw back the villa into the estate.[46]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The court explained that, under Morrison<\/em> and applicable Ninth Circuit precedent, Congress intended an extraterritorial application of the Bankruptcy Code as it applies to property of the estate, including with respect to section 549(a).[47]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Icenhower<\/em> decision suggests that Madoff<\/em> may have been decided differently if the feeder funds were consolidated into the Madoff Securities estate, even considering the fact that section 548(a) uses the term \u201cinterest of the debtor in property\u201d rather than \u201cproperty of the estate.\u201d[48]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The Trustee may have found more success if, for example, he was able to show that Madoff Securities and the feeder funds colluded to defraud other Madoff customers by distributing assets to the foreign subsequent transferees. In an alternative scenario, the defendants\u2019 arguments may have been stronger if the feeder funds at issue invested a smaller portion of their assets in Madoff Securities (say 5% rather than 95% or 100%). Under those facts, as a due process matter, it would seem even less appropriate to bring the foreign subsequent transferees into the Madoff Securities bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n

With respect to comity, it is important to note that the doctrine requires a comparison of jurisdictional interests that does not always result in deference. In a recent chapter 15 case, In re Elpida Memory Inc.<\/em>,[49]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>the bankruptcy court conducted a de novo review of a sale transaction that had been previously approved by the Japanese bankruptcy court in the main proceeding, stating that comity \u201cis not the end all be all of the [Chapter 15] statute.\u201d[50]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In Madoff<\/em>, the court found persuasive the fact that many of the feeder funds were undergoing liquidation proceedings in their respective home countries.[51]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Consequently, the Trustee could seek recovery from subsequent transferees pursuant to the laws of the feeder funds\u2019 home countries.[52]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Without those facts, or if the feeder funds\u2019 home jurisdictions had been ones with undeveloped insolvency laws such that the U.S. retained a stronger interest in seeing the subsequent transfers recovered from the feeder funds\u2019 customers, the result may have been different.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, extraterritorial application of the Bankruptcy Code and international comity require courts to examine congressional intent while balancing the competing interests of different jurisdictions. Absent contrary intent within the statute, debtors and trustees in cases under both SIPA and the Bankruptcy Code likely face an uphill battle in overcoming the presumption against extraterritoriality. The recent gravitation toward universalism and respect for foreign laws reinforces that presumption and seeks to establish international deference as the governing baseline.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Preferred citation: Timothy Graulich, Brian M. Resnick, & Kevin J. Coco, Fatally Foreign: Extraterritorial Recovery of Avoidable Transfers and Principals of Comity in the Madoff Securities SIPA Liquidation Proceeding<\/em>, 5 Harv. Bus. L. Rev. Online 53 (2015), https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/\/?p=3971.<\/p>\n

<\/a>* Timothy Graulich and Brian M. Resnick are partners in the Insolvency and Restructuring Group of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and Kevin J. Coco is an associate in that group.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[1] See<\/em> Robert Frank, Madoff Jailed After Admitting Epic Scam<\/em>, Wsj.com (Mar. 13, 2009), http:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/SB123685693449906551.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[2] 11 U.S.C \u00a7 550(a)(2) (2012).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[3] See generally<\/em> The Madoff Recovery Initiative: Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC & Bernard L. Madoff, http:\/\/www.madofftrustee.com (last visited Mar. 2, 2015).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[4] 11 U.S.C \u00a7 550(a)(2).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[5] See<\/em> Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 513 B.R. 222, 225 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2014).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[6] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/a>[7] Id.<\/em> at 228.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[8] Id.<\/em> at 231.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[9] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/a>[10] Id.<\/em> at 226.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[11] 561 U.S. 247 (2010).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[12] See Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.<\/em>, 513 B.R. at 226 (citing Morrison<\/em>, 561 U.S. at 264\u201373).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[13] See id. <\/em>at 226.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[14] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/a>[15] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/a>[16] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/a>[17] Id.<\/em> at 225, 232.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[18] 561 U.S. at 255 (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[19] 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 541(a).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[20] Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.<\/em>, 513 B.R. at 228.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[21] Id.<\/em> at 228\u201329.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[22] Id.<\/em> at 229.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[23] Id.<\/em> at 231 (quotingIn re Midland Euro Exch. Inc., 347 B.R. 708, 718 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2006)).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[24] Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[25] Id<\/em>. at 232.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[26] JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 412 F.3d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895)).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[27] See Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.<\/em>, 513 B.R.at 232.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[28] Id<\/em>. (quoting Decl. of Marco E. Schnabl dated July 13, 2012, Ex. C., No. 12 Misc. 115, ECF No. 236 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 13, 2012)).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[29] Transcript of Oral Argument.<\/em> at 29 (Sept. 28, 2012), Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.<\/em>, 513 B.R. 222.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[30] Id.<\/em> at 15-16.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[31] See Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.<\/em>, 513 B.R.at 232.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[32] EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[33] Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.<\/em>, 513 B.R. at 227.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[34] 93 F.3d 1036 (2d Cir. 1996).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[35] Id.<\/em> at 1054-55.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[36] Id. <\/em>at 1048.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[37] Law Business Research Ltd, The International Insolvency Review 2 (Donald S. Bernstein ed., 2d ed.\u00a0 2014).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[38] See<\/em> United Nations Commission On International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation 109 (2014), available at<\/em> www.uncitral.org\/uncitral\/en\/uncitral_texts\/insolvency\/1997Model.html.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[39] 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 1501 (2005); Status \u2013 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997), http:\/\/www.uncitral.org\/uncitral\/en\/uncitral_texts\/insolvency\/1997Model_status.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2015).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[40] See, e.g.<\/em>, Jay Lawrence Westbrook, Theory and Pragmatism in Global Insolvencies: Choice of Laws and Choice of Forum<\/em>, 65 Am. Bankr. L.J. 457, 461 (1991).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[41] 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 550(a).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[42] 757 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2014).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[43] Id.<\/em> at 1048.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[44] Id.<\/em> at 1053.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[45] 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 549(a) (2012).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[46] Icenhowe<\/em>r, 757 F.3d at 1051.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[47] Id.<\/em> at 1050.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[48] See<\/em> 11 U.S. Code \u00a7 548(a) (2012).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[49] No. 12-10947 CSS, 2012 WL 6090194 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 20, 2012).<\/p>\n

<\/a>[50] Id.<\/em> at *8.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[51] See Sec. Investor Prot. Corp<\/em>., 513 B.R.at 232.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[52] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Extraterritorial application of the Bankruptcy Code and international comity require courts to examine congressional intent while balancing the competing interests of different jurisdictions. Absent contrary intent within the statute, debtors and trustees in cases under both SIPA and the Bankruptcy Code likely face an uphill battle in overcoming the presumption against extraterritoriality. The recent gravitation toward universalism and respect for foreign laws reinforces that presumption and seeks to establish international deference as the governing baseline.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":53,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[30,23,22,208,255],"tags":[314,267,271,266,270,268,269],"ppma_author":[389],"class_list":["post-3971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bankruptcy","category-featured","category-home","category-us-business-law","category-volume-5","tag-bankruptcy","tag-clawbacks","tag-comity","tag-extraterritoriality","tag-madoff","tag-preferences","tag-sipa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pgKEUK-123","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":5012,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/millennials-enron-secs-failure-to-regulate-the-growing-crypto-market-gives-a-modern-industry-an-uncertain-future\/","url_meta":{"origin":3971,"position":0},"title":"Millennials\u2019 Enron: SEC\u2019s Failure to Regulate the Growing Crypto Market Gives a Modern Industry an Uncertain Future","author":"cmajocha","date":"February 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Ever since Bitcoin\u2019s electrifying launch in 2009, the crypto market has evolved into a new frontier of wealth, generating a boom of cryptocurrencies, elaborate exchanges, and even a whole new universe built upon the blockchain. The new industry seemed immune to the financial pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Home"","block_context":{"text":"Home","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/category\/home\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":908,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/a-brief-history-of-hedge-fund-adviser-registration-and-its-consequences-for-private-equity-and-venture-capital-advisers\/","url_meta":{"origin":3971,"position":1},"title":"A Brief History of Hedge Fund Adviser Registration and Its Consequences for Private Equity and Venture Capital Advisers","author":"wpengine","date":"February 1, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"William K. Sjostrom, Jr. Historically, hedge fund advisers have not had to register under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Advisers Act) because of the private adviser exemption. This exemption applied to an investment adviser who (1) had fewer than fifteen clients during the previous twelve months, (2) did\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Home"","block_context":{"text":"Home","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/category\/home\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3636,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/brazilian-private-equity-funds-fips-a-dna-change-in-brazilian-ma-deals\/","url_meta":{"origin":3971,"position":2},"title":"Brazilian Private Equity Funds (FIPs): A DNA Change in Brazilian M&A Deals","author":"wpengine","date":"November 25, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Jos\u00e9 Carlos Junqueira Sampaio Meirelles and Caio Carlos Cruz Ferreira Silva: M&A deals in Brazil involving private equity players have been undergoing an important DNA change stemming from the increasing use of the Brazilian Private Equity Fund (Fundo de Investimento em Participa\u00e7\u00f5es (FIP)).","rel":"","context":"In "Featured"","block_context":{"text":"Featured","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/category\/featured\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2013\/11\/Brazil-Image.jpg?fit=1024%2C681&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2013\/11\/Brazil-Image.jpg?fit=1024%2C681&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2013\/11\/Brazil-Image.jpg?fit=1024%2C681&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2013\/11\/Brazil-Image.jpg?fit=1024%2C681&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":4493,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/sidestepping-the-rat-holes-investment-risk-and-securities-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":3971,"position":3},"title":"Sidestepping the Rat Holes: Investment Risk and Securities Law","author":"ehansen","date":"April 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Download PDF This Article presents a novel understanding of the purpose of federal securities laws as the management of investment risk. Those laws should be treated as a whole. When two rules, even under different statutes, address the same risk, they should be applied concomitantly. For example, broker-dealer regulation under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Home"","block_context":{"text":"Home","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/category\/home\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4318,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/a-federal-fiduciary-standard-under-the-investment-advisers-act-of-1940-a-refinement-for-the-protection-of-private-funds\/","url_meta":{"origin":3971,"position":4},"title":"A Federal Fiduciary Standard Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940: A Refinement for the Protection of Private Funds","author":"ehansen","date":"December 6, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Download PDF Tyler Kirk\u2020 Introductory Note The appropriate role of the fiduciary standard in the financial industry has garnered a lot of attention of late. Lawmakers, investors, and industry are all adding their voices to the chorus that will eventually become the regulatory response to the call to harmonize standards\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Home"","block_context":{"text":"Home","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/category\/home\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2488,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/spacs-and-the-jobs-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":3971,"position":5},"title":"SPACs and the JOBS Act","author":"wpengine","date":"October 2, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Usha Rodrigues: The JOBS Act\u2019s IPO on-ramp was intended to ease regular companies\u2019 path to going public; instead, it has inadvertently made it easier for the average investor to get a taste of private equity...","rel":"","context":"In "Featured"","block_context":{"text":"Featured","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/category\/featured\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"authors":[{"term_id":389,"user_id":53,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jpalaciomoreno","display_name":"Juan Palacio Moreno","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/922a340f9c7d40b22e775c12e4e7cb156c4197e73783564c2d4de5054c74c913?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/53"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3971"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}