John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher and Peter H. Fountain, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss their recent representation of Citadel Securities, one of the world’s largest market makers, in connection with a case concerning Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical company forced into bankruptcy due to opioid litigation. The central issue was whether $1.6 billion in stock share buybacks conducted between 2015 and 2018 could be recovered by the bankruptcy estate as fraudulent transfers.
The legal theory advanced by a litigation trust formed during the bankruptcy was unprecedented, as it sought to void Mallinckrodt’s share repurchases on the open market, which were made in the ordinary course of business. The trust contended that, under Irish law (Mallinckrodt was an Irish corporation), these repurchases were void because Mallinckrodt should have recognized that it was insolvent due to substantial opioid-related tort liabilities that were not reflected on its balance sheet.
The litigation trust characterized these sales as constructive fraudulent conveyances, asserting that Mallinckrodt lacked adequate capital when executing the buybacks. The trust sought to claw back the full $1.6 billion from ordinary market participants who had sold shares years prior, basing their argument on limited precedent from Enron-related cases from the 1980s.
The defense successfully challenged these claims by invoking the Section 546(e) bankruptcy safe harbor provision. This provision is intended to preserve finality in financial markets and protect legitimate securities transactions. The defense emphasized that Citadel and similar market makers qualified as financial participants and that the share repurchases constituted protected settlement payments and transfers pursuant to securities contracts under the safe harbor provision.
Accepting the litigation trust’s theory would require market makers to investigate not only the published financial statements of every traded company, but also hidden tort liabilities and the corporate laws of each jurisdiction of incorporation, before facilitating any transactions. Both the bankruptcy and district courts recognized that imposing such obligations would paralyze financial markets and defeat the purpose of the safe harbor provision, and rejected the trust’s novel claims.