Cunningham v. Brown
265 U.S. 1, 44 S. Ct. 424 (1924)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a debtor is operating a Ponzi scheme and is thus always insolvent, payments made to defrauded creditors within the four-month preference period of the Bankruptcy Act are voidable preferences if the creditors cannot trace their specific funds and had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent.
Facts:
- In December 1919, Charles Ponzi began a scheme borrowing money on promissory notes, falsely claiming he was investing in international postal coupons for a 100% profit.
- Ponzi promised lenders a 50% return, offering to pay $150 for every $100 loaned within 90 days, often paying them in 45 days to encourage more loans.
- Ponzi was insolvent from the beginning, making no actual investments and using money from new lenders to pay earlier ones.
- The defendants (Brown, Crockford, et al.) loaned money to Ponzi between July 20 and July 24, 1920.
- Following a public investigation and a Boston newspaper's exposé on August 2, 1920, declaring Ponzi hopelessly insolvent, a panicked run on his office began.
- During this run, the defendants received payments from Ponzi for the principal amount of their loans.
- All of the defendants' original loan money had been deposited into Ponzi's bank account and subsequently withdrawn by him by July 28, before the defendants received their payments.
- The payments made to the defendants after August 2nd came from a commingled fund consisting of money from other, more recent lenders.
Procedural Posture:
- The trustee in bankruptcy for Charles Ponzi, Cunningham, filed six suits in equity in the U.S. District Court against the defendants.
- The District Court tried the cases together and dismissed the trustee's bills, finding for the defendants.
- The trustee, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendants, who were the appellees.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the trustee's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do payments made by an insolvent debtor to defrauded lenders within the four-month pre-bankruptcy period constitute a voidable preference under the Bankruptcy Act when the lenders cannot trace their specific funds into the money they received, and they had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taft
Yes. The payments constitute a voidable preference because the defendants were creditors who received payment on their debt while having reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent, and they could not trace their funds to establish a constructive trust. First, the Court rejected the lower courts' finding that the defendants' actions were a rescission of their contracts for fraud; rather, they were merely creditors taking advantage of Ponzi's offer to pay unmatured notes. Second, the defendants had reasonable cause to believe Ponzi was insolvent, as evidenced by their participation in the 'wild scramble' for funds after the public exposé. Their diligence in seeking repayment was an attempt to secure a preference, which is what the Bankruptcy Act is designed to prevent. Third, even if it were a rescission, the defendants failed to trace their specific money. Their funds were commingled and withdrawn before they received repayment, so they could not establish a constructive trust or equitable lien on the money they received. The rule from Knatchbull v. Hallett does not apply because the entire fund was composed of money from similarly situated defrauded victims, and applying the fiction would be inequitable. The principle of bankruptcy law is 'equality is equity,' meaning all victims who could not trace their funds were simply creditors, and those who succeeded in the 'race of diligence' secured an unlawful preference.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the foundational legal principles for handling creditor claims in Ponzi scheme bankruptcies. The ruling clarifies that unless victims can specifically trace their funds, they are considered general, unsecured creditors, reinforcing the Bankruptcy Act's core principle of 'equality is equity' among creditors. By rejecting the application of equitable tracing fictions in a fund comprised entirely of victims' money, the court prevented a chaotic 'race to the courthouse' and ensured a more orderly and equitable distribution of remaining assets. This precedent remains critical in modern financial fraud cases, dictating that early investors who get paid back on the eve of collapse cannot retain those funds at the expense of later victims.
Unlock the full brief for Cunningham v. Brown