Independent Examiner in FTX Bankruptcy Case
Firm Serves as Counsel to the Examiner
Figuring out when a pre-petition waiver of a jury trial will be respected in lawsuits brought in bankruptcy cases can be tricky. In a recent case, In re D.I.T., Inc., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 3386 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2017), a court distinguished between claims belonging to a debtor pre-petition and those belonging to a debtor-in-possession.
When a bankruptcy petition is filed, contract claims between a debtor and creditor, for instance, become property of the bankruptcy estate. The pre-petition waiver of a jury trial as to those claims will be honored. Fraudulent transfer and preferential transfer claims don’t belong to a debtor pre-petition but are derived from the Bankruptcy Code and thus belong to a bankruptcy trustee or a debtor-in-possession. The pre-petition contractual waiver of a jury trial by a debtor as to those claims won’t be enforced.[1]
The court in D.I.T. explained the law and certain exceptions. The background facts were straightforward. In June 2014, the debtor filed a chapter 11 petition. The case later converted to chapter 7 and a trustee was appointed. The trustee sued the debtor’s pre-petition secured lender to recover alleged fraudulent transfers the lender received pre-petition in the amount of $13 million.
The lender had extended credit through both a term loan and a revolving credit agreement. A promissory note waived jury trials in actions between the debtor and the lender. The trustee wanted to try the avoidance claims to a jury. The lender didn’t and argued that bankruptcy trustees are never entitled to a jury trial for avoidance actions and that the trustee was bound by the waiver in the promissory note.
Bankruptcy Judge Erik Kimball ruled for the trustee. His analysis began with the proposition that when a debtor waives its right to a jury trial, that waiver will only be enforced as to claims the debtor owned pre-petition. As noted above, a debtor that contracts with a creditor pre-petition owns the contractual claims arising from the contract. But avoidance actions derive from the Bankruptcy Code. They don’t belong to a debtor pre-petition.
And when a monetary recovery is sought in an avoidance action from a defendant-creditor, the claim is an action at law entitling the defendant to a jury trial, a right supplied by the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, a pre-petition waiver of a jury trial by a debtor will not be enforced as to the trustee or the debtor-in-possession with respect to avoidance actions.
But exceptions kick in when a trustee seeks to recover actual property but not a monetary recovery, or the creditor has filed a proof of claim. Actions where a bankruptcy estate seeks the return of an item or the voiding of an instrument are actions in equity not at law, and thus the constitutional right to a jury trial doesn’t exist.
Also, if a trustee or a debtor brings an avoidance action against a creditor and the creditor files a proof of claim, then the avoidance action becomes part of the claims allowance process – also an action in equity – and the creditor will not have a right to a jury trial. But if the creditor doesn’t file a proof of claim, then it retains its constitutional right to a jury trial in the avoidance action even if a pre-petition contract between the debtor and the creditor waived the parties’ right to a jury trial.
So, when a pre-petition contract has a jury-trial waiver, the short take-away is this: if the action is one belonging to a debtor, and does not derive from the Bankruptcy Code, then the waiver is enforceable. But even when the waiver is unenforceable, if the trustee or the debtor-in-possession is not seeking a monetary recovery, or if the creditor has filed a proof of claim, then the action may be one in equity for which there is no jury trial right at all.[2]
[1] But, as discussed below, even if a pre-petition jury trial waiver is deemed unenforceable with respect to these post-petition claims, a defendant’s right to a jury is not guaranteed.
[2] D.I.T. is also worth reading because Judge Kimball discusses key Supreme Court decisions that address concepts reviewed in this post: Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966); Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990); Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989); and Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011).
In a recent post, here, we wrote about a court decision that discussed deadlines for proofs of claim in a case involving a Ponzi scheme. Then, last week, another court issued a decision concerning late amendments to proofs of claim. In re James F. Humphreys & Assocs., L.C., Case No. 2:16-bk-20006 (Bankr. S.D. W.Va. Sept. 27, 2017). The upshot of this case is that amendments to proofs of claim filed after a plan’s effective date will be denied absent “compelling reasons.”
In January 2016, the debtor filed for chapter 11. The deadline or bar date for creditors to file proofs of claim was May 23, 2016, and later extended to July 16, 2016. The bar date notice told creditors to file claims with the claims agent, not the bankruptcy court.
On May 23, 2016, Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, P.C. (“HFM”) filed a timely proof of claim in the amount of $1.5 million.
The court later approved a Disclosure Statement and in February 2017 confirmed a Plan of Reorganization. The Plan said parties could amend claims on or after the Plan’s effective date only with court approval.
On the effective date, HFM filed an amended proof of claim in the amount of $2.39 million. The claim was filed with the court, not the claims agent. The debtor moved to strike the claim both because it was filed on the effective date and not with the claims agent. The court ruled for the debtor.
Bankruptcy Code section 501 and Rule 3001 govern the filing of proofs of claim. A filed claim is presumptively valid unless and until a debtor objects and introduces evidence to the contrary. See In re Haupt & Co., 253 F. Supp. 97, 98-99 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); see also In re Harford Sands Inc., 372 F.3d 637, 640 (4th Cir. 2016). Parties can seek to amend claims, but courts typically apply significant scrutiny when a party seeks to amend a claim after a plan becomes effective.
Here, the court cited cases from other jurisdictions that had adopted the “compelling reasons” standard. Holstein v. Brill, 987 F.2d 1268, 1270 (7th Cir. 1993). See In re Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 639 F.3d 1053, 1056 (11th Cir. 2011); In re G-1 Holdings, Inc., 514 B.R. 720, 760 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2014); and In re Nextmedia Group Inc., 2011 WL 4711997, at *3 (D. Del. 2011).
The Judge in James F. Humphrey’s & Assocs., Frank W. Volk, said that HFM had shown no compelling reason for waiting until the effective date to amend its claim. He also noted that HFM had filed the claim in the wrong place – with the court and not the claims agent. As a result, the debtor’s motion to strike the amended claim was granted.
This case and the case we wrote about last week, In re Maui Indus. Loan & Fn. Co., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2553 (Bankr. D. Hawaii, Sept. 7, 21017), highlight why creditors must be mindful of deadlines concerning proofs of claim. Creditors often seek to amend claims for various reasons, but James F. Humphrey’s & Assocs. demonstrates why it is highly risky for creditors to wait until after an effective date to do so.
Court decisions about failed Ponzi schemes often make good reading. The fact patterns always involve actual fraud. The illicit schemes give rise to insightful discussions on various legal concepts.
In the typical Ponzi scheme, the wrongdoer pays supposed “investment returns” to early investors from monies obtained from later investors, rather than from real business revenue. At some point, the fake funding runs out and the scheme is exposed. As one judge recently wrote, “the iron laws of mathematics” cause these schemes to collapse. In re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2553 (Bankr. D. Hawaii, Sept. 7, 2017).[i]
In that case, the Ponzi scheme ran for 23 years before it collapsed. The schemer was arrested and prosecuted. The company filed for bankruptcy and liquidated. A bankruptcy trustee was appointed, pursued litigation, and recovered about $8 million.
Creditors filed claims totaling about $10.6 million. Of this, $8.1 million was filed before the court-approved deadline or bar date. And of that amount, $5.8 was for principal while $2.3 million was for investment returns. Other claims totaling $2.6 million were filed after the bar date, and also for both principal and investment returns.
The trustee asked the court for instructions on a key issue: whether timely filed claims for lost profits should be paid before or after untimely filed claims for principal. Judge Robert J. Faris looked to the distribution priorities set forth in Bankruptcy Code section 726. That section provides for payment of:
allowed administrative priority claims;
allowed unsecured claims that are timely filed;
late-filed claims when creditors lack notice or actual knowledge of the bar date;
late-filed claims when creditors have knowledge of the bar date[ii]; and
allowed claims for penalties, fines, or forfeitures, or for multiple, exemplary, or punitive damages.
The trustee suggested that the court might see fit to permit payment of both the timely and untimely claims for principal before payment of any claim for lost investment returns. He argued that claims for lost returns in a Ponzi scheme are unenforceable.
Judge Faris disagreed. He said that untimely claims for lost investment returns are not unenforceable. They were submitted to the court in proofs of claim and “‘deemed allowed’ unless and until a party in interest objects to them, and no one has done so.” In re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co. 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2553, at *7.
In addition, Judge Faris considered if Bankruptcy Code section 105(a) gave him authority to permit payment of untimely filed claims for principal before timely filed claims for lost investment returns. Section 105(a) allows courts to issue any order, process, or judgment necessary to carry out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. But Judge Faris concluded that Bankruptcy Code section 105(a) couldn’t be used to “override the explicit mandates of other sections of the Bankruptcy Code.” 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2553, at *8. He noted that “[s]ection 726 specifically lays out the order in which claims are paid. The bankruptcy court has no power to overturn the Congressional ordering of distribution rights.” Id.
The priorities in section 726 meant that both principal and investment returns set forth in timely filed claims would be paid before principal and investment returns sought in untimely claims. So while creditors that filed untimely claims could pursue payment to the extent the claims were allowed, that right would yield a distribution only if the bankruptcy estate had more than enough funds to pay all timely filed claims, even the portion for lost profits. Given that the trustee recovered $8 million, and the timely filed claims totaled about $8.1 million, creditors that filed late claims likely would not receive a distribution.
[i] The term Ponzi scheme is named after Charles Ponzi, a businessman in Boston who became infamous for using the device in the 1920’s to defraud investors.
[ii] Creditors that have knowledge of a bar date and yet file late claims must demonstrate why their failure to file on time should be excused. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (setting forth the Supreme Court’s standard of excusable neglect).


Partner
Mr. Lowenthal, Chair of the firm’s Business Reorganization and Creditors' Rights Practice, has earned recognition as a skilled advocate in the bankruptcy, creditors' rights, and corporate restructuring arena. He represents creditors' committees, trade creditors, indenture trustees, and bankruptcy trustees and examiners in domestic and international cases.
Mr. Lowenthal recently served as counsel to the court-appointed Examiner in the chapter 11 cases of FTX Trading Ltd. and its affiliates. In this position, he investigated issues critical to the FTX bankruptcy cases, including potential conflicts of interest and fraudulent transfers, that were summarized in two publicly filed reports.
Mr. Lowenthal also represents U.S. and non-U.S. business entities in a wide range of complex litigation issues, including creditors’ rights disputes, purchases of intellectual property assets, and distressed debt acquisitions and restructuring. He has achieved numerous favorable results for clients in trial and appellate courts as well as commercial arbitration. Recently, he successfully defended former executives of a failed European bank against allegations that they had defrauded investors.
A regular speaker on bankruptcy law topics, Mr. Lowenthal recently presented for the American Bankruptcy Institute, the Practising Law Institute, INSOL International, INSOL Europe, and the Association of Corporate Counsel. Most recently, Mr. Lowenthal was a member of INSOL Europe’s 2023 Amsterdam Congress Technical Committee. He has been recognized by JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards as one of the top ten authors in the Bankruptcy category from 2023-2026. Mr. Lowenthal has received Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating of "AV Preeminent" based on both peer and client reviews and has been named to The Best Lawyers in America in the area of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law. He has also been named by Super Lawyers in the areas of bankruptcy: business and business litigation. Lastly, Mr. Lowenthal has been named to the 2022-2026 editions of the Lawdragon 500 Leading U.S. Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers guide.
Representative Matters
Represented court-appointed Examiner in chapter 11 cases of FTX Trading Ltd., including assisting him with various investigations summarized in two publicly filed reports.
Represented foreign administrators of a global alternative energy company in its chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case, successfully petitioning the court for the return of over $28 million held in a U.S. bank account.
Representing noteholders of a Brazilian company in a lawsuit arising from a debt default.
Representing the Oversight Committee for a post-confirmation liquidating trust in the Southern District of Texas.
Representing the Indenture Trustee for a series of unsecured notes in connection with an Italian insolvency proceeding and a related chapter 15 case.
Represented a bidder in a competitive auction to acquire the assets of a chapter 11 debtor.
Lead counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of multi-state real estate developer with liabilities in excess of a billion dollars. The Bankruptcy Court praised the “remarkable results” achieved through the “extraordinary efforts” of Patterson Belknap attorneys in this case.
Representing an international financial institution as Indenture Trustee in cross-border insolvency cases pending in Grand Cayman and Hong Kong.
Represented an Indenture Trustee and Co-Chair of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on over $5 billion of unsecured debt in one of the largest, most complex cases ever filed in Delaware, the Energy Future Holdings Corp. cases.
Represented an Indenture Trustee in the Nortel Networks Inc. cross-border cases, a set of insolvency cases filed in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.
Represented an Indenture Trustee on bonds governed by New York law in an insolvency case in London.
Represented an Indenture Trustee on $1.7 billion of unsecured debt in the Washington Mutual, Inc. case.
Representing a former member of the Board of Directors in The Weinstein Company Holdings bankruptcy case.
Represented an international law firm in a proceeding before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court relating to conflicts of interest in a Chapter 11 representation.
Represented the winning bidder in an auction to acquire the assets and intellectual property from a Chapter 7 debtor over the objection and competing bid of the debtor’s secured lender.
Special litigation counsel to an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to investigate fraudulent conveyance claims.
Conducted an internal investigation of a multi-national law firm following its role in a large Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
Representing the Post-Confirmation Trustee in the Tarragon Corporation case.
Special litigation counsel to a Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy of an employee leasing company.
Represented an Indenture Trustee in the Nortel Networks Inc. cross-border cases, a set of insolvency cases filed in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.
Represented the Liquidating Trust Board in the TerreStar Networks Inc. case.
Represented the Trust Oversight Committee in the Disney retail store chain case.
Represented Harrison J. Goldin, an Examiner in the Enron Corp. case, in an investigation of many of Enron's special-purpose-entity transactions.
Representing international creditors, including entities in the U.K., the Netherlands, and Germany, in the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. case.
Represented a Scottish aviation company in the Hawker Beechraft Corporation case.
Defending a reinsurance company in a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit brought by creditors of Tribune Company in U.S. Federal Court.
Representing a Mexican creditor in the Stanford International Bank Ltd. case.
Obtained a favorable result on behalf of the largest private bank in Brazil in connection with the Chapter 15 case of a Brazilian company.
Represented the Retiree Committee in the U.S. Airways, Inc. case, including serving as trial counsel on the debtor’s motion to eliminate retiree benefits.
Won a crucial decision of first impression for financial institutions whose security interests were challenged by the bankruptcy trustee in The Bennett Funding Group, Inc. case, a case that stemmed from an alleged $1 billion Ponzi scheme.
Represented the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the STAR Telecommunications, Inc. case.
MEMBERSHIPS: American Bar Association; Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization Committee of the New York City Bar Association; American Bankruptcy Institute; Board of Editors, The Bankruptcy Strategist; INSOL International; INSOL Europe (2023 Amsterdam Congress Technical Committee); Turnaround Management Association and the New York Institute of Credit.
Virginia Business, "Speyside Bourbon Cooperage to lay off 52 in Atkins," (March 4, 2026)
Law360, "PrimaLend to Seek OK for Ch. 11 Bidding in Market Test," (January 6, 2026)
Bloomberg Law, "Bankruptcy in 2026 to Be Guided by Policy Change, Fraud Scrutiny," (January 2, 2026)
Law360, "4 Shocking Moments in Bankruptcy History," (April 17, 2024)
Law360, "Bankruptcy Issues To Watch In 2024" (January 1, 2024)
Law360, "Purdue's High Court Case Puts Bankruptcy Pragmatism On Trial" (December 1, 2023)
Turnarounds & Workouts, "Key Issues in WeWork" (November 2023)
Forbes, "FTX Examiner Compromise Would Bring Investigation With Limited Scope" (February 7, 2023)
Forbes, "FTX’s Ray, Battling To Avoid Outside Probe, Faces Court Bout With Trustee" (February 4, 2023)
Barron's, "FTX U.S. Customers’ Funds Might Take Years to Recover: Experts" (December 2, 2022)
Bloomberg Law, "Bankruptcy Lawyers Gird for Onslaught of Battered Companies" (March 23, 2020)
Oil Express, "Despite Court Ruling, Possible Sale of CITGO Likely a Long Way Off" (August 1, 2019)
Westlaw Journal, "Attorneys weigh impact of high court’s bankruptcy contract rejection ruling" (June 20, 2019)
Bloomberg Law, "Cloud Peak Shareholders Want Say in Bankruptcy Reorganization" (May 22, 2019)
Law360, "Justices Save TM Licensees From Contract Conundrum" (May 21, 2019)
World Intellectual Property Review, "SCOTUS Examines TM Licensing Post-Bankruptcy" (February 21, 2019)
Reuters, "Gymboree Files for Chapter 11 as More Retailers Restructure Debt" (January 18, 2019)
The New York Times, "PG&E Bankruptcy Could Deal Blow to Its Solar-Power Suppliers’ Finances" (January 17, 2019)
Los Angeles Times, "PG&E to file for bankruptcy as wildfire costs hit $30 billion. Its stock plunges 52%" (January 14, 2019)
Bloomberg Law, "2019 Outlook: Plenty of Restructuring Work Ahead" (December 31, 2018)
Oil Price Information Service,"Deal Keeps Venezuela in Control of CITGO" (November 26, 2018)
Chicago Tribune, "Whirlpool to Sears: We want our appliances back" (October 29, 2018)
Private Debt Investor, "Sears files for bankruptcy, TSLX a creditor in the case" (October 16, 2018)
Los Angeles Times, "Bankruptcy gives Sears the opportunity to stay alive, its chairman says" (October 15, 2018)
Chain Store Age, "Sears’ Bankruptcy: Experts weigh in" (October 15, 2018)
Associated Press, “Nation’s largest mattress retailer files for bankruptcy” (October 5, 2018)
Daily Mail, “Mattress Firm files for bankruptcy and plans to close up to 700 stores amid exploding competition from online retailers like Amazon and Casper” (October 5, 2018)
Chain Store Age, “Mattress Firm files for Chapter 11, closing up to 700 stores” (October 5, 2018)
Financial Times, “Sears’ survival hangs in balance as investors weigh rescue plan” (September 26, 2018)
Legal Newsline, "Federal judge joins others, says bankruptcy court not allowed to impose punitive sanctions" (January, 2018)