Fairfield Sentry Limited and Nomura International plc

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X 	FOR PUBLICATION
In re:
Chapter 15
FAIRFIELD SENTRY LIMITED, et al.,
Case No. 10-13164 (BRL)
Debtors in Foreign Proceedings. 	(Jointly Administered)
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
BROWN RUDNICK LLP
Seven Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: 	(212) 209-4800
Facsimile: 	(212) 589-4201
By: 	David J. Molton
May Orenstein
Daniel Saval
Kerry L. Quinn
Attorneys for the Foreign Representatives
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52 nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: 	(212) 403-1000
Facsimile: 	(212) 403-2000
By: 	John F. Savarese
Amy R. Wolf
Emil A. Kleinhaus
Meredith L. Turner
Attorneys for J.P. Morgan Securities Limited
PATTON BOGGS LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: 	(646) 557-5100
Facsimile: 	(646) 557-5101
By: 	Michael P. Richman
Anthony Nguyen
Attorneys for Defendant Theodoor GGC Amsterdam
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 1 of 19

2
MOSES & SINGER LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10174
Telephone: 	(212) 554-7800
Facsimile: 	(212) 554-7700
By: 	Alan Kolod
Mark N. Parry
Attorneys for Defendant Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3400
New York, New York 10036-4003
Telephone: 	(212) 556-2100
Facsimile: 	(212) 556-2222
By: 	Richard A. Cirillo
Lauren W. Mitchell
Attorneys for NBK Banque Privée (Suisse) S.A.
WROBEL & SCHATZ, LLP
1040 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1101
New York, New York 10018-3703
Telephone: 	(212) 421-8100
Facsimile: 	(212) 421-8170
By: 	Philip R. Schatz
Attorneys for Northern Navigation America Inc.
Before: Hon. Burton R. Lifland
United States Bankruptcy Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING FOREIGN
REPRESENTATIVES’ MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 108 AND SETTING
THE DATE OF THE “ORDER FOR RELIEF”
Before the Court is the Motion (the “Motion”) of Kenneth Krys (“Krys”) and Joanna Lau
(“Lau,” and together with Krys and their predecessors, the “Foreign Representatives”), Foreign
Representatives of the liquidation proceedings (the “BVI Proceedings”) of Fairfield Sentry
Limited 	(“Sentry”), 	Fairfield 	Sigma 	Limited 	(“Sigma”) 	and 	Fairfield 	Lambda 	Limited
(“Lambda,” and together with Sentry and Sigma, the “Debtors”) pending before the Commercial
Division of the High Court of Justice, British Virgin Islands (the “BVI Court”), recognized by
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 2 of 19

3
this Court as a foreign main proceeding under section 1517(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (the
“Code”) on July 22, 2010 (the “Recognition Order”),1 seeking an order pursuant to sections
103(a), 105(a), 1507(a) and 1521(a)(7) of the Code granting relief under section 108 of the Code
(“Section 108”) and setting July 22, 2010 as the date of the “order for relief” for purposes of
Section 108.
The rather straightforward relief sought in the Motion is this Court’s application of the
tolling provisions of Section 108, allowing the Foreign Representatives extensions of time from
the date upon which they stepped into the shoes of the Debtors in these chapter 15 cases to assert
causes of action and meet applicable deadlines on the Debtors’ behalf with respect to currently
pending and potential litigation. The Foreign Representatives assert that for these purposes, the
date of the “order for relief” is July 22, 2010, when this Court entered the Recognition Order.
The Foreign Representatives argue both that the relief provided by Section 108 is automatically
applicable in a chapter 15 case, as in a chapter 11 case, and that such relief is otherwise
necessary to effectuate the purposes of chapter 15 pursuant to sections 1507(a) and 1521(a)(7) of
the Code.2
Briefs in opposition to the Motion were filed by certain defendants (the “Objectors”) to
the Foreign Representatives’ 209 pending adversary proceedings (the “Redeemer Actions”),
whereby the Foreign Representatives seek to recover substantial potential BVI estate assets. The
1 In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. 60 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Exhibit A – Bench Memorandum and Order
Granting Chapter 15 Petitions of Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited, and Fairfield Lambda Limited
For Recognition of Foreign Proceedings.”), Dkt. No. 47, as amended by Errata Orders at Dkt. Nos. 48, 51.
2 See Foreign Representatives’ Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1507(a) and 1521 (a)(7) for an Order (I) Granting
the Foreign Representatives Relief Under 11 U.S.C. § 108 and (II) Setting the Date of the “Order For Relief”, Dkt.
No. 95, p. 7 (“[T]he Bankruptcy Code is silent as to whether the relief provided in section 108 is automatically
available to a foreign representative and, to date, there is no dispositive case law on the issue. Nevertheless, the
legislative history of section 1520 indicates that Congress intended for section 108 to be available in Chapter 15
cases. Moreover, the Court has the authority to grant the Foreign Representatives the relief available in section 108
of the Bankruptcy Code pursuant to sections 1507(a) and 1521(a)(7) . . . .”).
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 3 of 19

4
Objectors argue, inter alia, that the tolling provisions of Section 108 are not available in a
chapter 15 case, and that the Foreign Representatives are otherwise unentitled to the extension of
such relief to them.
For the reasons set forth below and at oral argument, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
I. 	THE D EBTORS AND THE CHAPTER 15 CASES
The Debtors were established for the purpose of allowing mainly non-U.S. persons and
certain tax-exempt U.S. entities to invest with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
(“BLMIS”). On December 11, 2008, it was revealed that Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) had for
decades perpetrated a Ponzi scheme through the investment advisory side of BLMIS, which is
currently in liquidation before this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 78aaa et seq., the Securities
Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”). Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. BLMIS (In re BLMIS), No. 08-01789
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Subsequent to the revelation of the BLMIS fraud, certain of the Debtors’ shareholders
and creditors commenced insolvency proceedings on behalf of the Debtors in the British Virgin
Islands (the “BVI”) before the BVI Court. The BVI Proceedings were commenced on separate
dates with respect to each of the Debtors: Lambda on February 27, 2009, Sentry on April 21,
2009, and Sigma on April 23, 2009. The BVI Court appointed Christopher Stride (“Stride”) as
liquidator of Lambda by order dated April 23, 2009 and Stride and Krys as joint liquidators of
Sentry and Sigma by orders dated July 21, 2009. 	Lau subsequently succeeded to Stride’s
liquidator positions, and Krys was appointed as joint liquidator of Lambda with Lau. As a result,
Krys and Lau are the current joint court-appointed liquidators of the Debtors estates and the
Foreign Representatives with respect to each of the Debtors’ chapter 15 cases. 	See Notice of
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 4 of 19

5
Change in Status of Foreign Representatives’ Appointment Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1518, Dkt.
No. 77.3
The Foreign Representatives filed the Debtors’ chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition
of the BVI Proceedings before this Court on June 14, 2010 (the “Petition Date”). The Debtors’
chapter 15 cases were consolidated for administrative purposes by order dated June 17, 2010.
Amended Order Authorizing Joint Administration of Cases Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1015,
Dkt. No. 11. On July 22, 2010 (the “Recognition Date”), after a hearing held on the matter, this
Court entered the Recognition Order recognizing the Debtors’ BVI Proceedings as foreign main
proceedings and granting other relief under sections 1517(b)(1) and 1521 of the Code. 	See
generally In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. 60 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).
II. 	THE FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVES ’ ROLE AND THE PENDING ACTIONS
As the Debtors are the largest of the so-called “feeder funds” to have invested with
Madoff through BLMIS, the Debtors’ investors are not only creditors to this proceeding, but also
victims of the massive Ponzi scheme. In order to marshal assets for fair and efficient distribution
among these creditors and victims, in accordance with BVI insolvency law, the Foreign
Representatives are “entrust[ed] [with] the administration or realization of all or part of the
debtor’s assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” 	11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5);
see also In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. at 67 (“[G]ranting the requested relief under section
1521 of the Code fosters the ‘fair and efficient administration of [the Debtors’] cross-border
insolvencies’ by ensuring that only one unbiased party-the Liquidators-quarterback the Debtors’
causes of action ‘in the interests of all creditors and other interested entities, including the
debtor.’ ”) (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(3)). 	Recognition of the BVI Proceedings as foreign
3 Citations to docket numbers refer to the main case, Case No. 10-13164, unless otherwise indicated.
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 5 of 19

6
main proceedings under chapter 15, among other things, grants the Foreign Representatives “the
capacity to sue and be sued in a court of the United States” and the ability to “apply directly to a
court in the United States for appropriate relief in that court.” 	11 U.S.C. § 1509(b)(1), (2)
(“Right of Direct Access”). 	Moreover, as liquidators appointed by order of the BVI Court, the
Foreign Representatives “have custody and control of all the assets” of the Debtors and the
powers to, inter alia, “commence, continue, discontinue or defend any action or other legal
proceedings in the name and on behalf of the Company [the Debtors] in the British Virgin
Islands or elsewhere” and “all other things incidental to the exercise of” such powers. 	BVI
Insolvency Order, pp. 11–12. 4
In furtherance of these powers and duties, the Foreign Representatives have identified
and asserted causes of action against a number of parties on behalf of the Debtors. 	In April
2010, with the BVI Court’s approval, the Foreign Representatives began commencing the
Redeemer Actions in the United States against direct or indirect subscribers for the return of
redemption payments withdrawn from Sentry’s BLMIS account. 	The Redeemer Actions are
currently pending before this Court, 5 in substantially identical form, asserting equitable and
restitutionary common law claims of unjust enrichment, money had and received, mistaken
payment and constructive trust, as well as BVI avoidance claims under sections 245 and 246 of
the BVI Insolvency Act for “unfair preferences” and “undervalue transactions.” 	At the time of
this decision, there are 209 adversary proceedings pending, seeking in the aggregate over $5.79
billion, including fictitious profits in excess of $690 million. Ltr. to Hon. Burton R. Lifland re:
4 Verified Petition, Dkt. No. 2, Ex. A, In re The Insolvency Act 2003 and Fairfield Sentry Ltd., BVIHCV2009/136
(Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice, July 21, 2009) [hereinafter “BVI Insolvency Order”].
5 Those Redeemer Actions originally filed in New York State Court prior to the Recognition Order have been either
discontinued or removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1452 and Bankruptcy Rule 9027 to this Court.
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 6 of 19

7
Statistics on Redeemer Actions, Dkt. No. 415.
After a hearing held on November 9, 2010, these Redeemer Actions, and “any other
actions now pending or later filed in this district that arise out of or are related to the same facts
as alleged in the Redeemer Actions,” were procedurally consolidated for pretrial and discovery
purposes by order dated November 10, 2010, as amended by order dated November 17, 2010.
See Amended Order Authorizing the Consolidation of Redeemer Actions Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7042, Dkt. No. 257, ¶ 2. 	This Court additionally entered a
Preliminary Scheduling Order implementing a coordinated schedule for the Actions. Preliminary
Scheduling Order for Redeemer Actions, Dkt. No. 245. 	The Foreign Representatives continue
to gather information to determine when, and to whom, all of the Debtors’ assets were
transferred in order to commence related actions. The total number of suits to be commenced is
not yet known and could potentially be hundreds.6
In addition to the Redeemer Actions, the Foreign Representatives are pursuing Sentry’s
action against its former investment advisors, including Fairfield Greenwich Group, Fairfield
Greenwich Limited, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda) Limited, Fairfield Greenwich Advisors
LLC, Fairfield International Managers, Inc. and certain related individuals, seeking in excess of
$919 million in investment management and performance fees from Sentry’s BLMIS account
(the “Sentry Direct Action”). 	The Sentry Direct Action was commenced in the Commercial
Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on May 29, 2009,
6 Certain defendants to the Redeemer Actions removed from New York State Court filed motions for remand or
abstention the “Remand Motions”). Certain of the Remand Motions were filed before the District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) as part of larger motions requesting withdrawal of the
reference, which were consolidated before a single judge and denied by Memorandum and Order dated November
22, 1010, transferring the remand issue to this Court. See In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., 10-CIV-7340 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 22, 2010), Dkt. No. 15, p. 6. In a written opinion issued concurrently herewith, this Court denied the Remand
Motions, retaining the Redeemer Actions and the Debtors’ other causes of action together in one forum. 	See
Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al. v. Theodoor GGC, et al. (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al.), Adv. Pro. No. 10-03496,
Dkt. No. 268 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 7 of 19

8
and ultimately removed to the District Court and referred to this Court, where it is currently
pending. See Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. Fairfield Greenwich Group, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03800.
The parties entered into a Stipulation whereby the defendants’ time to move, answer, or
otherwise respond to the complaint is set for June 6, 2011. Motion of Foreign Representatives
Kenneth Krys and Christopher Stride To Authorize Joint Administration of Cases Pursuant to 11
U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 1521, Dkt. No. 8.
In addition to the Actions now pending, the Foreign Representatives are investigating
potential claims against any parties bearing responsibility for the Debtors’ massive losses in
value in connection with their BLMIS investments. 	The Foreign Representatives represent that
pivotal deadlines for commencing additional civil actions, and for performing acts required to
continue the Actions that have already been commenced, are quickly approaching, and they are
required to take action in order to preserve the Debtors’ rights.
DISCUSSION
I. 	SECTION 108 RELIEF IS APPLICABLE IN THESE CHAPTER 15 CASES
While there is no dispositive case law addressing whether Section 108 relief is
automatically applicable in these chapter 15 cases, this question is squarely addressed by section
103(a) of the Code, which incorporates Section 108 into a chapter 15 proceeding. 	The Court’s
analysis therefore “begins where all such inquiries must begin: with the language” of these two
relevant statutes themselves. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989); see
also Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 131 S. Ct. 716, 723 (2011) (“Our interpretation of the
Bankruptcy Code starts where all such inquires must begin: with the language of the statute
itself.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. 334, 340 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2010) (“In interpreting the meaning of section 1520(a)(1), the Court is bound by the plain
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 8 of 19

9
meaning of the statute.”). 	Where, as here, the language of the relevant statutes is plain and
unambiguous, “the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” Ron Pair
Enters., 489 U.S. at 240-41 (internal quotations omitted). 	Consistent with well-established
principles of statutory interpretation, this Court finds that the plain language of section 103(a) of
the Code instructs that the tolling provisions of Section 108 are automatically available to the
Foreign Representatives in these chapter 15 cases.
The tolling provisions of Section 108 essentially grant a two-year extension of time for a
trustee in bankruptcy to commence actions in the interests of the estate, provided that the
applicable time period had not expired before the filing of the petition. The statute states:
If applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding,
or an agreement fixes a period within which the debtor may commence an action,
and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, the
trustee may commence such action only before the later of – (1) the end of such
period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the
commencement of the case; or (2) two years after the order for relief.
11 U.S.C. § 108(a). Similarly, subsection (b) of Section 108 provides a short extension of time
for filing pleadings, curing defaults, and performing other acts on behalf of the debtor:
[I]f 	applicable 	nonbankruptcy 	law, 	an 	order 	entered 	in 	a 	nonbankruptcy
proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period within which the debtor . . . may file
any pleading, demand, notice, or proof of claim or loss, cure a default, or perform
any other similar act, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing
of the petition, the trustee may only file, cure, or perform, as the case may be,
before the later of – (1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such
period occurring on or after the commencement of the case; or (2) 60 days after
the order for relief.
11 U.S.C. § 108(b). 	These provisions allow a trustee additional time, upon stepping into the
shoes of the debtor, to discover and evaluate potential causes of action or perform other acts
required to preserve the debtor’s rights. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 318 (1977), as reprinted in
1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6275.
The instant dispute as to whether these tolling provisions may be utilized by the Foreign
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 9 of 19

10
Representatives falls under the purview of section 103(a) of the Code, which governs whether a
particular provision applies in a case under a particular chapter of the Code. Titled “applicability
of chapters,” section 103(a) of the Code states, in relevant part:
chapters 1, 3, and 5 of this title apply in a case under chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of
this title, and this chapter, sections 307, 362(n), 555 through 557, and 559 through
562 apply in a case under chapter 15.
11 U.S.C. § 103(a) (emphasis added). While only certain sections of chapters 3 and 5 apply in a
chapter 15 case, section 103(a) unambiguously states that “this chapter,”—chapter one—applies
in its entirety. In turn, Section 108 in particular is a general provision, which is not restricted to,
or excluded from, cases under any specific chapter of the Code. Daniel M. Glosband, et al., The
American Bankruptcy Institute Guide to Cross-Border Insolvency in The United States, 18
(American Bankruptcy Institute 2008) (“Section 103 of the Bankruptcy Code, Applicability of
Chapters, 	was 	amended 	by 	BAPCPA 	to 	provide 	that 	chapter 	1 of 	the 	Code, 	“General
Provisions,” would apply to cases under chapter 15.”). 	Thus, in reading section 103(a), this
Court need only assume that “Congress says in a statute what it means and means in a statute
what it says.” 	Stoltz v. Brattleboro Hous. Auth. (In re Stoltz), 315 F.3d 80, 89 (2d Cir. 2002)
(addressing 	issues 	of 	apparent 	first 	impression 	among 	the 	circuits) 	(quoting 	Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000)). 	Accordingly, the tolling
provisions of Section 108(a), as part of chapter one, are certainly applicable here.
The Objectors’ argument that section 1520 of the Code, which grants certain additional
effects of recognition of a foreign main proceeding, somehow eliminates the tolling provisions
from these cases is unavailing. 	The Objectors incorrectly assume that section 1520(a)(3),
granting the foreign representative the ability to “operate the debtor’s business and . . . exercise
the rights and powers of a trustee under and to the extent provided by sections 363 and 552,”
operates to the exclusion of the separate and additional relief available under Section 108. 	11
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 10 of 19

11
U.S.C. § 1520(a). 	They argue that the Foreign Representatives are not “trustees,” and section
1520(a)(3) provides the exclusive relief that can be transferred from “trustees” to foreign
representatives, without including Section 108 relief. 	See, e.g., Theodoor Obj., ¶¶ 9, 10 7 (“To
the extent that Congress intended to convey certain powers and rights of a trustee to a foreign
representative, it already did so in an express, limited grant under section 1520(a) . . . . [N]otably
absent is any mention of section 108.”); J.P. Morgan Obj., ¶ 188 (“[I]f section 108(a) were
intended to apply automatically in a chapter 15 case, that provision would be expressly
mentioned in section 1520(a)(3), which specifies the rights and powers of a ‘trustee’ that a
‘foreign representative’ obtains upon recognition of a foreign main proceeding.”).
This Court disagrees. Because sections 363 and 552 are not incorporated into chapter 15
cases ab initio by section 103(a), there was a need to expressly incorporate them under section
1520(a)(3) that did not exist with respect to Section 108. 	11 U.S.C. § 103(a) (“[T]his chapter,
sections 307, 362(n), 555 through 557, and 559 through 562 apply in a case under chapter 15.”).
This rationale applies consistently throughout the remaining subsections of section 1520, which
further incorporate sections 361, 362 and 549 in limited circumstances, as these provisions are
likewise not incorporated by section 103(a) of the Code. 	See id. 	Simply put, inclusion of
Section 108 relief in section 1520 would have been superfluous in light of the plain language of
section 103(a) of the Code. 	It is well established that courts endeavor to “avoid whenever
possible statutory interpretations that result in superfluous language.” 	See U.S. v. Novak, 476
F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)).
7 Objection of Theodoor GGC to the Foreign Representatives’ Motion for Relief under 11 U.S.C. § 108, Dkt. No.
193 [hereinafter “Theodoor Obj.”].
8 Objection of J.P. Morgan Securities Limited to Foreign Representatives’ Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1507(a)
and 1521(a)(7) for an Order (I) Granting the Foreign Representatives Relief Under 11 U.S.C. § 108 and (II) Setting
the Date of the “Order for Relief”, Dkt. No. 185 [hereinafter “J.P. Morgan Obj.”].
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 11 of 19

12
Neither does the Objectors’ narrow reading of “trustee” in Section 108 persuade this
Court that relief is unavailable to the Foreign Representatives. First, the definition of “trustee” in
chapter 15 is not as restrictive as the Objectors would have it be, as it uniquely utilizes the term
“includes,” rather than “means,” and broadly encompasses trustees and debtors-in-possession
alike. Compare 11 U.S.C. §1502(6) (“ ‘[T]rustee’ includes a trustee, a debtor in possession in a
case under any chapter of this title, or a debtor under chapter 9 of this title.”) (emphasis added)
with § 1502(1) (“ ‘debtor’ means . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also 11 U.S.C. § 102(3)
(“ ‘includes’ and ‘including’ are not limiting[.]”). 	The United States Supreme Court has
specifically held that the words “include” and “mean,” as have been deliberately selected in
defining “trustee” here, “are not used synonymously or loosely, but with discrimination and a
purpose to give to each a meaning not attributable to the other.” Am. Sur. Co. of New York v.
Marotta, 287 U.S. 513, 517 (1933) (“ ‘[I]nclude’ is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of
extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation.”). Thus, the use of the word “trustee”
in Section 108 is by no means dispositive evidence that its tolling relief is unavailable for use by
the Foreign Representatives here.
Second, the Foreign Representatives are indistinguishable from trustees with respect to
the purpose of Section 108 to provide the entity stepping into the shoes of the debtor additional
time 	to 	evaluate 	and 	preserve 	a 	debtor’s 	rights. 	Where 	entities, 	such 	as 	the 	Foreign
Representatives, “essentially function[] as the trustee,” the Second Circuit has found entitlement
to Section 108 relief. 	See Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers’ Intern. Ass’n, v. Custom
Air Sys., Inc., 333 F.3d 345, 348 (2d Cir. 2003) (“We can think of no policy justification for
affording the protections of § 108(b) to a trustee in a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy
proceeding but not to a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, where the
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 12 of 19

13
debtor in possession essentially functions as the trustee.”); see also In re Olympia & York
Maiden Lane Co., LLC, 233 B.R. 662, 667 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“[W]e do not read the
exclusion of a “receiver” from § 108 to bar a state court equity receiver . . . from obtaining the
[Section 108] relief he is seeking on behalf of the debtors . . . .”). Although not trustees in name,
the 	Foreign 	Representatives 	are 	likewise 	the 	“one 	unbiased 	party” 	responsible 	for
“quarterback[ing] the Debtors’ causes of action ‘in the interests of all creditors and other
interested entities, including the debtor.’ ” In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. at 67 (quoting 11
U.S.C. § 1501(a)(3)); see also BVI Insolvency Order (listing powers and duties of the Foreign
Representatives as liquidators); 11 U.S.C. § 1509(b) (granting the Foreign Representatives
“direct access” to United States courts). 	The purposes of Section 108 are particularly relevant
here, given the Foreign Representatives’ daunting task to “piece together a tangled web of
complex financial transfers and determine the propriety of prosecuting claims and causes of
action against a considerable number of defendants and potential defendants” arising out of the
largest 	investment 	funds’ 	involvement 	in 	Madoff’s 	massive, 	international 	Ponzi 	scheme.
Foreign Reps. Reply, ¶ 7. 9
This Court’s plain language reading is supported by the legislative history of section
1520 of the Code, which confirms Congress’ awareness of the application of Section 108 in a
chapter 15 proceeding. 	The purpose of chapter 15 is “to incorporate the Model Law on Cross-
Border Insolvency” (the “Model Law”). 11 U.S.C. §1501. Pursuant to the Model Law, the stay
imposed upon recognition “does not affect the right to commence individual actions or
proceedings to the extent necessary to preserve a claim against the debtor.” Model Law, Article
9 Foreign Representatives’ Omnibus Reply in Support of Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1507(a) and 1521(a)(7)
for an Order (I) Granting the Foreign Representatives Relief Under 11 U.S.C. § 108 and (II) Setting the Date of the
“Order for Relief”, Dkt. No. 210 [hereinafter “Foreign Reps. Reply”].
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 13 of 19

14
20, ¶ 3. 	The corollary provision of chapter 15 deviates from this paragraph of the Model Law,
providing that the stay “does not affect the right to commence an individual action or proceeding
in a foreign country to the extent necessary to preserve a claim against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. §
1520(b) (emphasis added). The explanation for this difference is found in the legislative history
of section 1520(b) and supports the applicability of Section 108 to a chapter 15 ancillary
proceeding: “Section 108 of the Bankruptcy Code provides the tolling protection intended by
Model Law article 20(3), so no exception is necessary [in section 1520] for claims that might be
extinguished under United States law.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-31(I), at 115 (2005), as reprinted in
2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88 (emphasis added). 	This legislative history confirms that Congress was
aware of the application of at least certain provisions of Section 108 to a chapter 15
proceeding.10
While the parties have not cited a decision, and this Court is aware of none, in which the
merits of this issue have been analyzed, extant law supports this Court’s analysis. 	In In re
Condor Insurance Ltd., the bankruptcy court issued an order directing that “the application of
section 108 of the Bankruptcy Code is relief available to a trustee and therefore can be granted to
the Foreign Representatives under section 1521(a)(7).” 	Order Granting Motion for Relief
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7) for the Application of 11 U.S.C. § 108, In re Condor Ins.
Ltd., No. 07-51045, Dkt. No. 44, p. 1 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Oct. 10, 2007) (the “Condor Order.”).
While the Condor court relied upon section 1521(a)(7) of the Code, it did not indicate any
objection to the automatic availability of such relief or consider section 103(a) of the Code. See
10 Thus, the Court finds arguments that the legislative history is irrelevant because it is in the context of section
108(c) rather than 108(a) unpersuasive. The legislative history refers broadly to “[s]ection 108 of the Bankruptcy
Code,” and the Court can conceive of no reason why the same policy goals should not be enforced with respect to
actions by and against the debtor for these purposes. H.R. Rep. No. 109-31(I), at 115 (2005), as reprinted in 2005
U.S.C.C.A.N. 88 (emphasis added).
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 14 of 19

15
id. 	The National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges’ comprehensive law journal article
examining chapter 15 jurisprudence considers the Condor Order in conjunction with section
103(a) of the Code and concludes, consistent with this Court’s reasoning, that “[r]ights afforded
by Chapter 1, such as extensions of time under § 108, apply in a Chapter 15 case by virtue of §
103(a). 	Thus, there should be no need to obtain an order under § 105, 1507, or 1521 declaring
that § 108 is applicable in a Chapter 15 case.” NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BANKRUPTCY J UDGES ,
82 AM. B ANKR. L. J. 269, 313 (Spring 2008).
The only additional case that touches upon this issue does not hold otherwise. Contrary
to certain Objectors’ arguments, the Section 108 issue that is squarely before this Court was
never analyzed or decided in In re Bancredit Cayman Ltd. (Bancredit I), No. 06-11026, 2007
WL 3254369, at *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2007), aff’d, (Bancredit II), No. 07-CIV-11338,
2008 WL 919533 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2008). The court itself could not have stated so any more
clearly: “Nothing in this decision should be read to decide the ultimate issue: whether § 108 is
available to foreign representatives.” Id; see also Bancredit II, 2008 WL 919533 at *3 (“The real
question before the Bankruptcy Court . . . was whether it had jurisdiction.”). 	The court thus
qualified its language pertaining to the Section 108 issue as “identifying the potential weaknesses
of the foreign representatives’ arguments . . . simply . . . to show that the issue is not as
uncontroversial as [the foreign representatives] suppose, and requires that I hear both sides.” Id.
The court did not conduct an analysis of the plain language or legislative history of the relevant
Code sections or mention section 103(a) of the Code, but rather held that “[n]either the
background to this proceeding nor underlying merit of the Foreign Representatives request to
extend § 108 is important to the pending motion.” Id. at *1. Indeed, at least one of the Objectors
rightly concedes that the Bancredit cases do not decide the Section 108 issue presented here. See
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 15 of 19

16
Theodoor Obj., ¶ 9, n.2 (“Courts in this District . . . have had the opportunity to touch upon this
issue, while not deciding it . . . .”).
Nevertheless, the Objectors erroneously import issues present in the Bancredit cases,
arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Motion, the Motion seeks an advisory
opinion, or there is no case or controversy. See Bancredit I, 2007 WL 3254369, at *3. (“There is
no case or controversy brewing; the Foreign Representatives . . . seek piece [sic] of mind at the
expense of those who may be adversely affected by the relief they seek, even though those
persons did not receive notice or the chance to argue . . . .”). 	Here, unlike in Bancredit, the
Objectors have filed multiple briefs and presented oral argument in opposition to the Motion, and
thus cannot credulously argue that notice is deficient as to them or that there has not been a full
and fair opportunity for litigation of this issue. As to future adversary proceedings, notice is also
not deficient. 	Unlike in the Bancredit cases, where the foreign representatives “failed to give
notice of their application to anyone who might controvert it” and “had not sued anyone,”
Bancredit I, at *2–3, the Foreign Representatives adequately noticed, inter alia, all parties to the
litigation pending in the United States in which any Debtor is a party or their counsel; all
registered shareholders; the Debtors’ former directors, investment manager, auditors, and other
service providers or their counsel; and all parties that have filed a notice of appearance in the
case; and they have commenced, among other suits, 209 Redeemer Actions against defendants
including the Objectors. 	Certificate of Service, Dkt. No. 105. 	Moreover, the automatic
application of Section 108 to toll deadlines relating to future adversary proceedings exists
precisely because trustees in general, and the Foreign Representatives in particular, do not
necessarily know at the time of stepping into the shoes of the Debtors all of the transfers and
defendants relevant to their potential claims. 	Thus, waiting for an adversary proceeding to be
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 16 of 19

17
asserted and a statute of limitations defense to be raised and defended against in order to
determine the Foreign Representatives’ entitlement to Section 108 relief defies logic and
subverts the purpose of the statute.
Accordingly, this Court cannot find that the Objectors’ arguments are sufficient to
overcome the plain language of section 103(a), which applies Section 108 outright in these
chapter 15 cases and must be enforced “according to its terms.” See Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S.
at 240–41.
Finally, the Recognition Date is properly deemed the date of the “order for relief” for
purposes of calculating the Foreign Representatives time under Section 108, as recognition
allowed the Foreign Representatives to avail themselves of the rights and remedies under the
Code. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 1509–21; In re SPhinX, Ltd., 351 B.R. 103, 115 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2006) (“The first step to obtaining relief under chapter 15 (with the exception of interim relief
under section 1519) is receiving ‘recognition’ of the foreign proceeding under section 1515 and
1517(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.”); Condor Order, p. 2 (“[S]ection 108 of the Bankruptcy Code
applies to this chapter 15 proceeding with August 21, 2007 [the recognition date] being the date
of the “order for relief” for purposes of section 108.”). The Objectors’ arguments that chapter 15
must technically define “order for relief” for utilization of Section 108 is therefore rejected. 	In
addition to contradicting the plain meaning of section 103(a) of the code, adoption of the
Objectors’ logic would write an exclusion of Section 108 relief into section 1521(a)(7) of the
Code, pitting the two statutes against each other and contradicting the outcome in Condor. See
1521(a)(7) (granting “any” relief available to a trustee to a foreign representative); Condor
Order, p. 1 (“[T]he application of section 108 of the Bankruptcy Code is relief available to a
trustee and therefore can be granted to the Foreign Representatives under section 1521(a)(7).”);
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 17 of 19

18
Roe v. City of New York, 232 F. Supp.2d 240, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“It is not the function of the
court . . . to declare one statute the victor over another if the statutes may be read together,
without misdirecting the one, or breaking the spirit of the other.”).
II. 	EXTENSION OF SECTION 108 TO THE FOREIGN R EPRESENTATIVES IS
O THERWISE NECESSARY UNDER SECTIONS 1507 AND 1521(a)(7) OF THE CODE
Even if section 108 were not a self-executing statute with respect to chapter 15 cases,
sections 1507 and 1521(a)(7) of the Code provide the ancillary court with strong flexibility to
extend the relief requested here.
Section 108 relief is available under section 1521(a)(7) of the Code, which empowers the
ancillary court to grant “any additional relief that may be available to a trustee, except for relief
available under section 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 724(a)[,]” where such relief is
“necessary to effectuate the purpose of [chapter 15] and to protect the assets of the debtor or the
interests of the creditors.” 	Id. at 1521(a)(7). 	In addition, “the court, if recognition is granted,
may provide additional assistance to a foreign representative under [the Code] or under other
laws of the United States.” 11 U.S.C. § 1507(a).
Here, the Court finds that Section 108 relief is “necessary to effectuate the purpose of
[chapter 15] and to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors.” 11 U.S.C. §
1521(a). 	The tolling extension under Section 108 will foster the objectives of chapter 15 by
facilitating 	the 	duties 	of 	the 	Foreign 	Representatives, 	who 	are 	“entrust[ed] 	[with] 	the
administration or realization of all or part of the debtor’s assets within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States,” to comply procedurally in pursuing and defending substantial litigation
within the United States. 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5). The Foreign Representatives are charged with
pursuing the Sentry Direct Action and 209 pending Redeemer Actions, as well as investigating
potential claims against other parties bearing responsibility for the Debtors’ massive losses in
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 18 of 19

19
value in connection with their BLMIS investments. 	Additional time will allow them to
effectively investigate complex financial transfers, commence actions within applicable statute
of limitations periods, and otherwise “untangle the web created by the Madoff fraud without the
looming expiration of statute of limitations periods.” Foreign Reps. Reply, ¶¶ 2, 7. Such relief
is necessary to aid their efforts to achieve multibillion-dollar recoveries for the benefit of
stakeholders of the largest feeder fund in the largest Ponzi scheme in United States history.
Accordingly, Section 108 relief is necessary under the circumstances for the fair and efficient
administration of this cross-border insolvency and the effective protection and maximization of
the value of the Debtors’ principle assets, which are its causes of action. 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(4).
CONCLUSION
In consideration of the plain language of the relevant sections of the Code and Model
Law, legislative history, and extant case law, the Court finds that Section 108 Relief is
automatically available to the Foreign Representatives. 	In addition, the requested relief is
warranted under sections 1507 and 1521(a)(7) of the code. 	Accordingly, the Motion is hereby
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
May 23, 2011
/s/ Burton R. Lifland
United States Bankruptcy Judge
10-13164-cgm Doc 421 Filed 05/23/11 Entered 05/23/11 17:43:22 Main Document
Pg 19 of 19