Hearing Date: April 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time)

James B. Kobak, Jr.

Christopher K. Kiplok

Josiah S. Trager

Anson B. Frelinghuysen

Meaghan C. Gragg

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

One Battery Park Plaza

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 422-4726

Attorneys for James W. Giddens,

Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of MF Global Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re

MF GLOBAL INC.,

Debtor.

Case No. 11-2790 (MG) SIPA

OMNIBUS REPLY TO LIMITED OBJECTIONS TO MOTION OF JAMES W. 

GIDDENS, SIPA TRUSTEE FOR LIQUIDATION OF MF GLOBAL INC., TO 

APPROVE FIRST INTERIM DISTRIBUTION FOR ALLOWED 

COMMODITY FUTURES CLAIMS

James W. Giddens (the “Trustee”), as Trustee for the liquidation of the business 

of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI” or the “Debtor”) under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 

1970, as amended (“SIPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78aaa et seq.,1

 

1. For convenience, subsequent references to SIPA will omit “15 U.S.C.”

as and for his omnibus reply to the 

limited objections (collectively, the “Limited Objections”) interposed to the Trustee’s expedited 

motion (the “Motion,” ECF No. 1086) to approve the first interim distribution for allowed 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 1 of 29
2

commodity futures claims, by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully states as 

follows:

1. The Trustee filed the Motion seeking authority to distribute an additional 

approximately $600 million of Segregated Funds,

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2 approximately $50 million of Secured Funds, 

and to identify and establish a Delivery Class and distribute approximately $35 million of 

Delivery Funds to claimants with allowed claims for property in that class. These funds would 

be distributed to former futures customer claimants who timely filed claims and have received 

and agreed to the Trustee’s determination of their claims (each a “Finalized Claim”), on a rolling 

basis. For clarity, a claimant’s claim also becomes a “Finalized Claim” if the claimant does not 

agree to the Trustee’s determination of the claim, but either through mutual agreement or judicial 

determination, any disputes regarding the claim are ultimately resolved.3

2. Several former public customers of MFGI interposed limited objections

and responses or sent informal responses to the Trustee’s counsel (together, the “Limited 

Objections”) relating to the relief sought in the Motion.4

 

2. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion.

 These Limited Objections primarily 

3. The term “Finalized Claim” was not used in the Proposed Order, originally submitted by the Trustee, but rather 

the Trustee used “allowed claim.” Again, for the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee meant that claims that were 

allowed because of the claimant’s agreement and those that were finalized through mutual or judicial resolution

would be eligible for this proposed First Interim Claims Distribution.

4. These consist of: (1) Claimant Jill Zunshine’s Response to the Trustee’s Motion to Approve First Interim 

Distribution for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1190); (2) Response of Patrick O’Malley, M.D., 

Matthew Johnson and Michael Dokupil to Trustee’s Motion to Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed 

Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1206); (3) Certain MF Global Inc. Claimants’ Objection to Motion of 

James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of MF Global Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution for 

Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1208); (4) Joinder and Limited Response of John Supple, 

Thomas Ritter and Greenbriar Partners, L.P. to Motion of James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of 

MF Global, Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 

(Footnote continued on next page)

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 2 of 29
3

seek clarification regarding the identified and proposed Delivery Class and the Declaration, 

Release and Assignment (the “DRA”) that is required to be executed by claimants if they agree 

with the Trustee’s determinations of their claims before their claims are deemed Finalized 

Claims and they become eligible to receive funds through the proposed First Interim Claims 

Distribution. Accordingly, this omnibus reply (the “Omnibus Reply”) addresses the Limited 

Objections by common category. 

3. Counsel for the Trustee has reviewed the five formal Limited Objections 

that were filed in response to the Motion and the one informal, undocketed response, and 

addresses all those responses in this Omnibus Reply.

5

4. The Trustee also received submissions from what are clearly not former 

public customers of MFGI, nor representatives of former public customers. The trustee for the 

chapter 11 proceeding of MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al. (the “Chapter 11 Trustee”) filed a 

statement (the “Holdings Statement,” ECF No. 1215) purporting to support the relief requested 

by the Motion, but making requests for extensive data concerning the status of the MFGI 

liquidation for purposes not germane to this Motion solely for the interests of its non-customer 

creditors and bondholders. This Motion only involves distribution of segregated customer 

property to former customers and makes clear both that the Trustee is withholding reasonable 

and substantial sums of customer property for contingencies and that non-customer property that 

 

(Footnote continued from previous page)

1216); (5) Limited Objection of Former Commodities Account Customers of MF Global Inc. to Motion of 

James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of MF Global Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution for 

Allowed Commodities Futures Claims, and to Related Proposed Order (ECF No. 1217); and (6) Informal 

Response of George V. Utlik (undocketed).

5. A chart summarizing each of these responses, and showing the Trustee’s replies, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 3 of 29
4

is being marshaled is not involved. The Statutory Creditors’ Committee of MF Global Holdings 

Ltd., et al. (the “Chapter 11 Committee”) then filed a (very late) response, titled as a joinder in

the Holdings Statement (the “Committee Statement,” ECF No. 1277), which included a chart of

mostly incorrect statements about the discussions and exchanges of information between the two 

trustees, in which the Chapter 11 Committee has not actively participated.

5. To be clear, the Trustee has been working diligently for the benefit of 

MFGI’s former customers and conducting this SIPA Proceeding with the utmost transparency for 

their benefit. The non-germane points of the Chapter 11 Trustee are addressed at the end of this 

Omnibus Reply after addressing the concerns of former public customers—the beneficiaries of 

the Trustee’s Motion. Additionally, in Exhibit B attached hereto, the Trustee sets the record 

straight about the status of the information exchanges between the Trustee and the Chapter 11 

Trustee.

THE TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO THE LIMITED OBJECTIONS

6. Two of the Limited Objections from former customers relate to the 

Trustee’s identification and proposed establishment of a Delivery Class.

Limited Objections Relating to the Delivery Class

6

 

6. See Response of Patrick O’Malley, M.D., Matthew Johnson and Michael Dokupil to Trustee’s Motion to 

Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1206); Joinder and 

Limited Response of John Supple, Thomas Ritter and Greenbriar Partners, L.P. to Motion of James W. Giddens, 

SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of MF Global, Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed 

Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1216).

 The Trustee maintains 

that, pursuant to the Part 190 Regulations, the proposed Delivery Class is comprised of Delivery 

Credits, Frozen Proceeds, and Delivery Debits, as well as the Physical Customer Property.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 4 of 29
5

7. As the Trustee noted in the Motion, the Part 190 Regulations identify six 

potential account classes: futures accounts, foreign futures accounts, leverage accounts, 

commodity option accounts, delivery accounts, and cleared OTC derivatives accounts. 17 C.F.R. 

§ 190.01(a) (emphasis added). “Delivery account” means:

[A]ny account prominently designated as such in the records of the 

debtor which contains only the specifically identifiable property 

associated with delivery set forth in § 190.01(kk)(3), (4), and (5), 

except that with respect to § 190.01(kk)(4) and (5), delivery need 

not be made or taken and exercise need not be effected for such 

property to be included in a delivery account.

 

17 C.F.R. § 190.05(a)(2). In other words, the Delivery Class will include the subset of 

specifically identifiable property defined in § 190.01(kk)(3), (4), and (5). 

8. Under all three relevant subsections of § 190.01(kk), the definition of 

specifically identifiable property is dependent on two common factors. First, the cash or other 

property must be identified on the books and records of the debtor as related to delivery of 

Physical Customer Property or exercise of the related contracts. See 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(3) 

(requiring that specifically identifiable property defined under this subsection “can be identified 

on the books and records of the debtor as received from or for the account of a particular 

customer as held specifically for the purpose of delivery or exercise”); 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(4) 

(requiring that specifically identifiable property defined under this subsection “is identified on 

the books and records of the debtor as received . . . specifically for the purpose of 

payment...upon taking delivery or . . . upon exercise”); 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(5) (requiring that 

specifically identifiable property defined under this subsection “is identified on the books and 

records of the debtor as received . . . for the purpose of a delivery or exercise”).

9. Second, the cash or other property encompassed by the subset of

“specifically identifiable property” defined in 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(3)–(5), which must be 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 5 of 29
6

included in the Delivery Class pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 109.05(a)(2), must be received, acquired, 

held, tendered, or deposited for the purpose of making or taking delivery of Physical Customer 

Property or exercising the related contracts. See 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(3) (requiring that 

specifically identifiable property defined under this subsection be “held by or for the account of 

the debtor for the purpose of making or taking delivery [of Physical Customer Property]”)

(emphasis added); 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(4) (requiring that specifically identifiable property 

defined under this subsection be deposited “to pay for the taking of physical delivery [of Physical 

Customer Property]”) (emphasis added); 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(5) (requiring that specifically 

identifiable property defined under this subsection be tendered “to make physical delivery [of 

Physical Customer Property]”) (emphasis added). 

10. In the MFGI books and records, property associated with the segregated 

(pursuant to section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act) portion of a customer’s account was 

designated as “F1”; property associated with the secured (pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 30.7) portion 

of a customer’s account was designated as “F2”; and property associated with the delivery 

portion of a customer’s account was designated as “F/D”. Delivery Credits and Delivery Debits 

were prominently designated in MFGI’s books and records as associated with the “F/D” portion 

of a customer’s account. Frozen Proceeds are essentially Delivery Credits suspended as a result 

of MFGI’s entry into liquidation, and would have been designated as associated with the “F/D” 

portion of a customer’s account if MFGI did not enter into liquidation and these proceeds had 

received any designation in MFGI’s book and records.7

 

7. As part of the Third Bulk Transfer (ECF No. 717), failed wire transfers, that—but for MFGI’s liquidation—

would have been recredited to the accounts with which they were associated were (with Court approval) 

credited back to the accountholders’ accounts so that bulk transfer distributions could be calculated and effected

 In other words, Delivery Credits, 

(Footnote continued on next page)

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 6 of 29
7

Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds were identified on the books and records of MFGI as 

related to delivery of Physical Customer Property or exercise of the related contracts. 

11. Further, Delivery Credits are simply proceeds credited to the F/D portion 

of a customer’s account resulting from the customer making delivery of Physical Customer 

Property in fulfillment of a contractual obligation. As noted above, Frozen Proceeds are 

Delivery Credits suspended as a result of MFGI’s entry into liquidation. Delivery Debits are 

simply debits recorded in the F/D portion of a customer’s account resulting from the customer 

taking delivery of Physical Customer Property in fulfillment of a contractual obligation. In other 

words, Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds were associated with the 

customer’s account for the purpose of making or taking delivery of Physical Customer Property 

or exercising the related contracts. Thus, these categories of property fall squarely into the 

subset of “specifically identifiable property” encompassed by 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(3)–(5), 

which must be included in the Delivery Class pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 190.05(a)(2).

12. Moreover, on MFGI’s books and records, Delivery Credits were 

designated as associated with the “F/D” portion of customers’ accounts and were not designated 

as associated with the “F1” portion of customers’ accounts that includes property segregated

under section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (“4d Customer Property”). Importantly, the 

funds associated with Delivery Credits were not required to be segregated under section 4d of the 

 

(Footnote continued from previous page)

appropriately. While this investigation into Frozen Proceeds took longer, the process here is logistically similar 

to the failed wire transfer process previously authorized by this Court; the Frozen Proceeds would have posted 

as F/D credits (a/k/a Delivery Credits) to the accountholders’ accounts, but for MFGI’s liquidation. In both 

cases, the credits were not reflected on the books and records on the Filing Date, but are nonetheless, readily 

traceable to the former customers’ accounts and corresponding account classes.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 7 of 29
8

Commodity Exchange Act, and, in fact, were not so segregated—meaning that they were not 

comingled with the 4d Customer Property. Thus, it would be improper to include Delivery 

Credits and Frozen Proceeds in the account class containing 4d Customer Property. Delivery 

Credits and Frozen Proceeds clearly do not qualify as property associated with commodity 

transactions in foreign markets secured pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 30.7 (“30.7 Secured Customer 

Property”), were not associated with the “F2” portion of customers’ accounts, and cannot be 

included in the account class containing 30.7 Secured Customer Property. Including Delivery 

Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds in the Delivery Class will in no way negate the 

CFTC’s purpose in creating the delivery account class of ensuring that “this property . . . will not 

be diluted by other types of customer claims.” 48 Fed. Reg. 8716, 8731 (Mar. 1, 1983). 

Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds must be accounted for in the Delivery 

Class in order to comply with the Part 190 Regulations, and cannot be included in any other 

account class or associated with “other types of customer claims.” 

13. As the Trustee stated in the Motion, the Delivery Credits were not 

required to be segregated pursuant to section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act, were not so 

segregated, but are nevertheless among the missing MFGI customer funds. One Limited 

Objection8

 

8. See Response of Patrick O’Malley, M.D., Matthew Johnson and Michael Dokupil to Trustee’s Motion to 

Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1206).

seeks to have the Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds improperly excluded from 

the Delivery Class. As holders of Physical Customer Property, these objectors are attempting to 

wrongfully reduce the shortfall of one account class—the Delivery Class—by inappropriately 

excluding Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds. Because the Delivery Credits are among the 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 8 of 29
9

missing MFGI customer funds, they will have the net effect of increasing the shortfall of 

whichever account class to which that property is attributed. Delivery Credits and Delivery 

Debits were prominently designated in MFGI’s books and records as associated with the “F/D” 

portion of customers’ accounts, and were held by MFGI for the purpose of making or taking 

delivery of Physical Customer Property. As explained above, Frozen Proceeds are Delivery 

Credits suspended as a result of MFGI’s entry into liquidation. Accordingly, Delivery Credits, 

Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds properly belong in the Delivery Class, along with Physical 

Customer Property, regardless of the effect they may have on the shortfall of that class. It would 

unjustly burden other former customers of MFGI to improperly increase the shortfall of other 

account classes by inappropriately attributing Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen 

Proceeds to any account class other than the class to which they belong—the Delivery Class.

14. These objectors further assert that Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds 

cannot be included in the Delivery Class because they were not required to be segregated and 

were in fact not segregated. Response of Patrick O’Malley, M.D., Matthew Johnson and 

Michael Dokupil at ¶ 9. To be clear, the Trustee stated that these funds were not required to be 

segregated pursuant to section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (Motion at ¶ 24)—and were 

not, in fact, comingled with such segregated funds. Moreover, the fact that funds associated with 

Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds were not required to be segregated and were not in fact 

segregated does not and cannot exclude them from the definition of “specifically identifiable 

property” under 17 C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(3)–(5) where those subsections make no mention of 

segregation. Further, 17 C.F.R. § 190.05(a)(2) provides only that the delivery account class must 

include “the specifically identifiable property associated with delivery set forth in 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 9 of 29
10

§ 190.01(kk)(3), (4), and (5) . . . .” (emphasis added). Again, there is no segregation requirement 

included in the definition of delivery account. 

15. In support of their assertion, the objectors misrepresent CFTC 

commentary as stating that “the ‘delivery account’ class should only include ‘[p]roperty 

segregated on behalf of a delivery account.’” Response of Patrick O’Malley, M.D., Matthew 

Johnson and Michael Dokupil at ¶ 9 (citing 48 Fed. Reg. 8716, 831 (Mar. 1, 1983)). The cited 

provision of the Federal Register actually reads, “[p]roperty segregated on behalf of a delivery 

account, under the allocation provisions, will be allocated only to that account class.” 48 Fed. 

Reg. 8716, 831 (Mar. 1, 1983). Thus, any property segregated on behalf of a delivery account 

must be included in the delivery account class, which includes the Delivery Credits, Delivery 

Debits, and Frozen Proceeds. Moreover, 17 C.F.R. § 190.08(c) specifically states that “property 

held by or for the account of a customer, which is segregated on behalf of a specific account 

class, or readily traceable on the filing date to customers of such account class, must be allocated 

to the customer estate of the account class for which it is segregated or to which it is readily 

traceable.” (emphasis added). Therefore, even under the objectors’ mischaracterization of the 

CFTC’s commentary, property not so segregated but otherwise readily traceable and 

encompassed by the relevant definitions included in 17 C.F.R. §§ 190.01(kk)(3)–(5) and 

190.05(a)(2)—including the Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds—must also 

be included in the Delivery Class.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 10 of 29
11

16. A second Limited Objection9 supported the Motion and requested only 

that the Trustee promptly determine the claims of and make distributions to those claimants with 

property that would now fall into the Delivery Class, but which was not covered by the 

categories of property which received distributions through the bulk transfer process. If the 

Trustee is authorized to establish the Delivery Class in accordance with the terms set forth in the 

Motion, his professionals will issue claim determinations to these claimants as soon as 

practicable. If these Delivery Class claimants agree with the Trustee’s determinations and 

execute DRAs, thereby rendering their claims Finalized Claims, they will promptly become 

eligible for distributions. If these Delivery Class claimants object to the Trustee’s 

determinations, they will be eligible for distributions after the dispute is resolved.

17. Several of the Limited Objections sought clarification on, or objected to, 

aspects of the DRA that accompanies the Trustee’s claim determinations.

Limited Objections Relating to the DRAs

10

 

9. See Joinder and Limited Response of John Supple, Thomas Ritter and Greenbriar Partners, L.P. to Motion of 

James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of MF Global, Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution for 

Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1216).

 As a preliminary 

matter, in order to receive funds under the proposed First Interim Claims Distribution, claimants 

must have timely filed claims and received determinations of their claims from the Trustee. 

Thereupon, if a claimant agrees with the Trustee’s determination of his or her claim and executes 

10. See Claimant Jill Zunshine’s Response to the Trustee’s Motion to Approve First Interim Distribution for 

Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1190); Certain MF Global Inc. Claimants’ Objection to Motion 

of James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of MF Global Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution 

for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1208); Limited Objection of Former Commodities Account 

Customers of MF Global Inc. to Motion of James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of MF Global Inc., 

to Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed Commodities Futures Claims, and to Related Proposed Order 

(ECF No. 1217); Informal Response of George V. Utlik (undocketed).

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 11 of 29
12

the DRA accompanying the Trustee’s claim determination, the claimant will be deemed to have 

a Finalized Claim, eligible for distribution under the proposed First Interim Claims Distribution. 

If a claimant disputes the Trustee’s determination of his or her claim, such claim will be deemed 

a Finalized Claim only upon resolution of the dispute—whether that be through negotiation 

between the parties or through judicial resolution culminating in entry of a Court order.

18. Separately from this Omnibus Reply and related Motion, the Trustee has

entered a stipulation and filed a response to various former customers’ concerns and objections

regarding the DRA (the “DRA Response,” ECF No. 1274). The concerns regarding the DRA

that were raised in the Limited Objections to this Motion were largely filed by the same former 

MFGI customers who filed objections to the DRA11

19. In sum, the DRA only assigns the portion of a customer’s claim relating to

actual payments of funds the customer receives from the Trustee in connection with this SIPA 

Proceeding. The DRA does not and will not alter or limit any rights a customer has, or any 

standing a customer has, to assert claims against third parties other than the Released Persons (as 

defined in the DRA) and to recover against such third parties on unsatisfied claims. The Trustee 

has considerable discretion in carrying out his responsibilities, to an even greater extent than a 

trustee in a bankruptcy liquidation, including the obtaining of releases and assignments for 

and are addressed in the Trustee’s DRA

Response. Accordingly, the DRA Response is incorporated by reference into this Omnibus 

Reply.

 

11. Of the three formal Limited Objections addressing the DRA, Jill Zunshine also filed a separate objection to the 

DRA (ECF No. 1161), as did the Paradigm Group (ECF No. 1111), and their concerns are addressed in the 

DRA Response. The concerns raised in the one remaining formal Limited Objection (ECF No. 1208) are also 

addressed in the DRA Response. The questions raised in the informal, undocketed response of George V. Utlik 

are addressed herein.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 12 of 29
13

former customer’s claims against third parties. SEC v. Albert & Maguire Secs. Co., 560 F.2d 

569, 573 (3d Cir. 1977) (trustee’s broad powers extend to obtaining assignments of a customer’s 

claims against third parties); see also 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 12.02 (16th ed. 2011). The 

document that the Trustee requests of each claimant is consistent with the goals of having 

similar, parallel claims processes for commodities and securities customers. It is prudent in 

terms of preserving standing for possible recovery of customer property and an application of 

principles consistent with the Second Circuit’s ruling regarding assignment of claims under 

Section 541(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. See Bankruptcy Servs., Inc. v. Ernst & Young (In re 

CBI Holding Co.), 529 F.3d 432, 457 (2d Cir. 2008). 

20. One Limited Objection asserted that a deadline should be set for the 

Trustee’s determination of claims.

Miscellaneous Additional Points Addressed in the Limited Objections

12

• The Trustee has received 26,778 total commodities claims and has received over 

4,500 additional general creditor claims that were likely misfiled, which will be 

treated as commodities claims. That said, the vast majority of the misfiled general 

creditor claims appear to be duplicative of filed commodities claims and some of the 

filed commodities claims are duplicates of and/or amendments to previously filed 

 The Trustee’s professionals are putting forth tremendous 

efforts to determine claims with as much expediency as is responsibly possible. As of the time 

of this filing, in the roughly two months since the bar date for the filing of commodities customer 

claims:

 

12. See Certain MF Global Inc. Claimants’ Objection to Motion of James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for 

Liquidation of MF Global Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims 

(ECF No. 1208) at ¶ 4.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 13 of 29
14

claims. The Trustee expects that the total number of unique claims from former 

commodities customers (accounting for duplicates and amendments) will be 

approximately 23,000.

• The Trustee has determined and issued letters of determination for 21,116 

commodities claims (which is over 90% of the expected total claims).

• To date, the Trustee has received 49 objections to his determinations and has received 

approximately 8,000 DRAs from former commodities customers agreeing with the 

Trustee’s determination. The time to object to the Trustee’s determinations has 

expired for another approximately 4,500 claims.

21. The roughly two thousand unique commodities public customer claims 

that are in the process of being determined involve complexities that require additional 

investigation, reconciliation and/or resolution. Nonetheless, the Trustee’s professionals continue 

to work toward determining the remaining commodities customer claims as quickly as possible, 

expect to complete these determinations in the very near future, and are continuously issuing 

letters of determination on a rolling basis. A deadline for the Trustee’s determination of these 

claims is not only unwarranted, it would be detrimental to determining net equity claims 

accurately and fairly in the interests of all claimants and as the CFTC regulations require. For 

example, the recent Court approval of the sale of the Physical Customer Property remaining 

under the Trustee’s control (ECF No. 1279) and the proposed establishment of the Delivery 

Class in the instant Motion, if approved by the Court, will now allow the Trustee to move 

forward with related claims determinations. As noted above, the Trustee’s professionals are also 

taking great efforts to re-categorize misfiled claims as commodities customer claims where 

appropriate by reviewing MFGI’s records, to ensure that these claimants receive the utmost 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 14 of 29
15

protection to which they are entitled. Moreover, since the relief requested in the Motion seeks 

authority for the Trustee to make the First Interim Claims Distribution on a rolling basis and is 

dependent on sufficient releases being received, the timing of the determinations of the 

remaining claims has very little impact.

22. In addition to the Limited Objections filed by former MFGI customers, the 

Chapter 11 Trustee filed the Holdings Statement, which purports to support the Motion, but 

requests that the Trustee be required to provide extensive data for the benefit of MF Global 

Holdings Ltd. and its creditors.

The Chapter 11 Trustee’s Statement and the Chapter 11 Committee’s Statement

13

 

13. See Chapter 11 Trustee’s Statement Regarding Motion of James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of 

MF Global Inc., to Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 

1215).

 The Trustee has taken great efforts to conduct this SIPA 

Proceeding with transparency and will continue to do so. Pursuant to this Court’s November 23, 

2011 Order Approving Trustee’s Expedited Application to Establish Parallel Customer Claims 

Processes and Related Relief (the “Claims Process Order,” ECF No. 423), the Trustee is 

obligated to file interim reports on the status of the liquidation every six months beginning with

the publication of the notice of commencement of this SIPA Proceeding. Claims Process Order 

at 7. Accordingly, the Trustee will file his first interim report by June 4, 2012. The Trustee also 

files status updates regarding the claims process every sixty days. Claims Process Order at 7. 

The Trustee thus filed reports addressing the status of the claims process on January 12, 2012 

(ECF No. 835) and March 2, 2012 (ECF No. 977). Further, in order to provide as much 

information as possible to former MFGI customers and other interested parties as promptly as is 

prudent, the Trustee voluntarily prepared and filed his Preliminary Report on Status of His 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 15 of 29
16

Investigation (ECF No. 896) within four months of commencement of the SIPA Proceeding—far 

sooner than is standard in SIPA liquidations. Moreover, the Trustee posts information and 

updates frequently on his website.

23. The Trustee will continue to comply with his reporting requirements as 

established under SIPA § 78fff-1(c) and by prior order of this Court, and will provide regular 

status reports to the Court and other interested parties, with due regard for preserving estate 

resources and the integrity of his ongoing investigation into the demise of MFGI. Additional 

disclosures are not warranted. 

24. The Chapter 11 Committee then filed a very late joinder14 in the Holdings 

Statement and included a chart of information that the Chapter 11 Committee incorrectly states is 

being withheld by the Trustee. The allegations—while wholly irrelevant to this Motion—

include references to meetings, discussions, and exchanges of information from which the 

Chapter 11 Committee has largely been absent and are inaccurate. In Exhibit B

25. This Motion is aimed solely at seeking authorization to distribute customer 

property back to former MFGI customers in the most prompt and efficient manner possible, and 

the relief requested is in furtherance of the interests of former MFGI public customers. Those 

customers receive priority treatment by operation of law. Possible intercompany claims, 

subordinated claims, and proprietary trading accounts come after them. The holding company

and its creditors’ committee, who employ some of the principal people who operated the 

, the Trustee sets 

the record straight about the status of these matters.

 

14. See Joinder of Statutory Creditors’ Committee of MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al. in Support of Position of 

Chapter 11 Trustee Regarding Motion of James W. Giddens, SIPA Trustee for Liquidation of MF Global Inc., 

to Approve First Interim Distribution for Allowed Commodity Futures Claims (ECF No. 1277).

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 16 of 29
17

business and presided over its demise, can scarcely claim to be unable to know basic information 

about intercompany accounts and outstanding trading relationships. The creditors of the holding 

company cannot blame the MFGI Trustee for the lack, to date, of any schedules, bar date, or any 

real plan for the debtors’ future in the Chapter 11 Proceeding. 

26. For the reasons set forth above, the Trustee respectfully requests that this 

Court enter the proposed order attached to the Motion as Exhibit A, and grant such other and 

further relief as is just and proper.

CONCLUSION

Dated: New York, New York

April 10, 2012

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

By: /s/ James B. Kobak, Jr.

Christopher K. Kiplok

James B. Kobak, Jr.

Josiah S. Trager

Anson B. Frelinghuysen 

Meaghan C. Gragg

One Battery Park Plaza

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 422-4726

Email: kobak@hugheshubbard.com

Attorneys for James W. Giddens, Trustee for 

the SIPA Liquidation of MF Global Inc. 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 17 of 29
EXHIBIT A

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 18 of 29
A-1

Exhibit A: Specific Limited Objections and the Trustee’s Responses

1.

Responses Received from Former Public Customers of MFGI

Response of Claimant Jill Zunshine (Zach Zunshine) (ECF No. 1190)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 Claimant objects to the Motion only to the extent that the 

Trustee proposes to exclude her from participating in the First 

Interim Claims Distribution because she objects to the DRA

required to be executed in order to have a Finalized Claim. (p. 

1)

 Specifically, the DRA provision requiring claimants to transfer 

and assign their third party claims and causes of action is not 

supported by law. (p. 1)

 The provision of the DRA requiring claimants to bestow 

immunity upon SIPC and the Trustee in his personal and 

official capacity extends beyond their legal entitlements. (p. 1)

 The provision requiring claimants to indemnify the Trustee and 

SIPC in case there is later a lien or claim found against their 

accounts is not supported by law. (p. 1–2)

 Claimants who object to the DRA, but not to the Trustee’s 

determination of their claims, should be allowed to participate 

in the First Interim Claims Distribution. (p. 3)

 Separately from this Omnibus Reply and related Motion, the Trustee has entered a 

stipulation and filed a response to various former customers’ concerns and 

objections regarding the DRA (the “DRA Response,” ECF No. 1274). The 

concerns regarding the DRA that were raised in the Limited Objections to this 

Motion were largely filed by the same former MFGI customers who filed 

objections to the DRA and are addressed in the Trustee’s DRA Response. 

Accordingly, the DRA Response is incorporated by reference into this Omnibus 

Reply. 

 In sum, the DRA only assigns the portion of a customer’s claim relating to actual

payments of funds the customer receives from the Trustee in connection with this 

SIPA Proceeding. The DRA does not and will not alter or limit any rights a 

customer has, or any standing a customer has, to assert claims against third parties 

other than the Released Persons (as defined in the DRA) and to recover against 

such third parties on unsatisfied claims. The Trustee has considerable discretion in 

carrying out his responsibilities, to an even greater extent than a trustee in a 

bankruptcy liquidation, including the obtaining of releases and assignments for 

former customer’s claims against third parties. SEC v. Albert & Maguire Secs. Co., 

560 F.2d 569, 573 (3d Cir. 1977) (trustee’s broad powers extend to obtaining 

assignments of a customer’s claims against third parties); see also 1 Collier on 

Bankruptcy ¶ 12.02 (16th ed. 2011). The document that the Trustee requests of 

each claimant is consistent with the goals of having similar, parallel claims 

processes for commodities and securities customers. It is prudent in terms of 

preserving standing for possible recovery of customer property and an application 

of principles consistent with the Second Circuit’s ruling regarding assignment of 

claims under Section 541(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. See Bankruptcy Servs., 

Inc. v. Ernst & Young (In re CBI Holding Co.), 529 F.3d 432, 457 (2d Cir. 2008).

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 19 of 29
A-2

2. Response of Patrick O’Malley, M.D., Matthew Johnson and Michael Dokupil (Barnes & Thornburg 

LLP)

(ECF No. 1206)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 The Motion incorrectly attempts to include Delivery Credits and 

Frozen Proceeds within the Delivery Class. The Delivery Class 

should be made up of only physical commodities and including 

Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds in the Delivery Class 

creates an improper shortfall in that class. (¶¶ 1, 4)

 First, the Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds should not be 

included in the Delivery Class because they are not “specifically 

identifiable property” and do not fall within the plain language 

of a “delivery account.” (¶ 6)

 Second, the inclusion of the Delivery Credits and Frozen 

Proceeds within the Delivery Class does not follow the CFTC’s 

articulated intent regarding the creation of the “delivery 

account” class, which was to shield customers holding 

specifically identifiable property from the otherwise dilutive 

effect of the Part 190 Regulations’ pro rata distribution scheme. 

(¶¶ 7–8)

 The CFTC’s commentary notes that the “delivery account” class 

should only include property segregated on behalf of a delivery

account, and the Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds were not 

required to be segregated nor in fact segregated, and thus they 

are not allowed to be part of a “delivery account” class. (¶ 9)

 As discussed in further detail in the Omnibus Reply, Delivery Credits and Delivery 

Debits were prominently designated in MFGI’s books and records as associated 

with the “F/D” portion of customers’ accounts, and were held by MFGI for the 

purpose of making or taking delivery of Physical Customer Property. Frozen 

Proceeds are essentially Delivery Credits suspended as a result of MFGI’s entry 

into liquidation, and would have been designated as associated with the “F/D” 

portion of a customer’s account if MFGI did not enter into liquidation and these 

proceeds had received any designation in MFGI’s book and records. Accordingly, 

Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds properly belong in the 

Delivery Class pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §§ 190.05(a)(2) and 190.01(kk)(3)–(5), along 

with Physical Customer Property, regardless of the effect they may have on the 

shortfall of that class. It would unjustly burden other former customers of MFGI to 

improperly increase the shortfall of other account classes by inappropriately 

attributing Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds to any account 

class other than the class to which they belong—the Delivery Class.

 Including Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds in the Delivery 

Class will in no way negate the CFTC’s purpose in creating the delivery account 

class of ensuring that “this property . . . will not be diluted by other types of 

customer claims.” 48 Fed. Reg. 8716, 8731 (Mar. 1, 1983). Delivery Credits, 

Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds must be accounted for in the Delivery Class 

in order to comply with the Part 190 Regulations, and cannot be included in any 

other account class or associated with “other types of customer claims.”

 The fact that funds associated with Delivery Credits and Frozen Proceeds were not 

required to be segregated and were not in fact segregated does not and cannot 

exclude them from the definition of “specifically identifiable property” under 17 

C.F.R. § 190.01(kk)(3)–(5) where those subsections make no mention of 

segregation. Further, 17 C.F.R. § 190.05(a)(2) provides only that the delivery 

account class must include “the specifically identifiable property associated with 

delivery set forth in § 190.01(kk)(3), (4), and (5) . . . .” (emphasis added). Again, 

there is no segregation requirement included in the definition of delivery account. 

 Moreover, 17 C.F.R. § 190.08(c) specifically states that “property held by or for 

the account of a customer, which is segregated on behalf of a specific account 

class, or readily traceable on the filing date to customers of such account class, 

must be allocated to the customer estate of the account class for which it is 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 20 of 29
A-3

segregated or to which it is readily traceable.” (emphasis added). Therefore, even 

under the objectors’ mischaracterization of the CFTC’s commentary, property not 

so segregated but otherwise readily traceable and encompassed by the relevant 

definitions included in 17 C.F.R. §§ 190.01(kk)(3)–(5) and 190.05(a)(2)—

including the Delivery Credits, Delivery Debits, and Frozen Proceeds—must also 

be included in the Delivery Class.

3. Certain MF Global Inc. Claimants’ Objection (Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka) (ECF No. 1208)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 The Trustee seeks authority to issue distributions to customer 

claimants who have “agreed to the Trustee’s determination of 

their claims,” but the Motion is unclear as to what will be 

required of claimants as part of their “agreement to” the 

Trustee’s final determination of their claim. (¶ 3)

 There is no justification for the Trustee to require any release or 

transfer of rights from any claimant in order for that claimant to 

receive a distribution. (¶ 3)

 In order to receive funds under the proposed First Interim Claims Distribution, 

claimants must have timely filed claims and received determinations of their claims 

from the Trustee. Thereupon, if a claimant agrees with the Trustee’s determination 

of his or her claim and executes the DRA accompanying the Trustee’s claim 

determination, the claimant will be deemed to have a Finalized Claim, eligible for 

distribution under the proposed First Interim Claims Distribution. If a claimant 

disputes the Trustee’s determination of his or her claim, such claim will be deemed 

a Finalized Claim only upon resolution of the dispute—whether that be through 

negotiation between the parties or through judicial resolution culminating in entry 

of a Court order.

 Separately from this Omnibus Reply and related Motion, the Trustee has entered a 

stipulation and filed a response to various former customers’ concerns and 

objections regarding the DRA (the “DRA Response,” ECF No. 1274). The 

concerns regarding the DRA that were raised in the Limited Objections to this 

Motion were largely filed by the same former MFGI customers who filed 

objections to the DRA and are addressed in the Trustee’s DRA Response. 

Accordingly, the DRA Response is incorporated by reference into this Omnibus 

Reply. 

 In sum, the DRA only assigns the portion of a customer’s claim relating to actual

payments of funds the customer receives from the Trustee in connection with this 

SIPA Proceeding. The DRA does not and will not alter or limit any rights a 

customer has, or any standing a customer has, to assert claims against third parties 

other than the Released Persons (as defined in the DRA) and to recover against 

such third parties on unsatisfied claims. The Trustee has considerable discretion in 

carrying out his responsibilities, to an even greater extent than a trustee in a 

bankruptcy liquidation, including the obtaining of releases and assignments for 

former customer’s claims against third parties. SEC v. Albert & Maguire Secs. Co., 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 21 of 29
A-4

560 F.2d 569, 573 (3d Cir. 1977) (trustee’s broad powers extend to obtaining 

assignments of a customer’s claims against third parties); see also 1 Collier on 

Bankruptcy ¶ 12.02 (16th ed. 2011). The document that the Trustee requests of 

each claimant is consistent with the goals of having similar, parallel claims 

processes for commodities and securities customers. It is prudent in terms of 

preserving standing for possible recovery of customer property and an application 

of principles consistent with the Second Circuit’s ruling regarding assignment of 

claims under Section 541(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. See Bankruptcy Servs., 

Inc. v. Ernst & Young (In re CBI Holding Co.), 529 F.3d 432, 457 (2d Cir. 2008).

 Before any further distributions are made, a deadline for the 

Trustee’s expeditious initial determination of timely filed claims 

should be established or, alternatively, a claimant should be able 

to request that the Trustee issue a determination of the claim 

within a reasonable time frame set by the Court. (¶ 4)

 The roughly two thousand unique commodities public customer claims that are in 

the process of being determined involve complexities that require additional 

investigation, reconciliation and/or resolution. Nonetheless, the Trustee’s 

professionals continue to work toward determining the remaining commodities 

customer claims as quickly as possible, expect to complete these determinations in 

the very near future, and are continuously issuing letters of determination on a 

rolling basis.

 As discussed in greater detail in the Omnibus Reply, a deadline for the Trustee’s 

determination of these claims is not only unwarranted, it would be detrimental to 

determining net equity claims accurately and fairly in the interests of all claimants 

and as the CFTC regulations require.

 Moreover, since the relief requested in the Motion seeks authority for the Trustee 

to make the First Interim Claims Distribution on a rolling basis and is dependent on 

sufficient releases being received, the timing of the determinations of the remaining 

claims has very little impact.

4. Joinder and Limited Response of John Supple, Thomas Ritter and Greenbriar Partners, L.P. (Foley 

& Lardner LLP)

(ECF No. 1216)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 The respondents support the relief sought by the Motion, but 

request that the Court, in addition to granting the relief requested 

by the Trustee: (i) clarify that the Third Bulk Transfer Order 

allows for an immediate up to 72% distribution to the Delivery 

Class customers; or (ii) encourage the Trustee to address the 

claims of customers, like the Delivery Class customers, who 

have not yet received a 72% distribution through a prompt claim 

 If the Trustee is authorized to establish the Delivery Class in accordance with the 

terms set forth in the Motion, his professionals will issue claim determinations to 

these claimants as soon as practicable. If these Delivery Class claimants agree with 

the Trustee’s determinations and execute DRAs, thereby rendering their claims 

Finalized Claims, they will promptly become eligible for distributions. If these 

Delivery Class claimants object to the Trustee’s determinations, they will be eligible 

for distributions after the dispute is resolved.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 22 of 29
A-5

determination. (¶¶ 1, 15)

5. Limited Objection of Former Commodities Account Customers of MF Global Inc. (Entwistle & 

Cappucci LLP, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., and Nisen & Elliot, LLC)

(ECF No. 1217)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 The objectors object to the Motion solely to the extent the 

Trustee attempts to condition the First Interim Claims 

Distribution on claimants executing the DRA. (¶¶ 1, 3)

 There is no legal basis for the Trustee to require customers of 

MFGI to assign to him their claims against third parties as a 

condition to receiving distributions. (¶¶ 2, 5, 7)

 Separately from this Omnibus Reply and related Motion, the Trustee has entered a 

stipulation and filed a response to various former customers’ concerns and 

objections regarding the DRA (the “DRA Response,” ECF No. 1274). The 

concerns regarding the DRA that were raised in the Limited Objections to this 

Motion were largely filed by the same former MFGI customers who filed 

objections to the DRA and are addressed in the Trustee’s DRA Response. 

Accordingly, the DRA Response is incorporated by reference into this Omnibus 

Reply. 

 In sum, the DRA only assigns the portion of a customer’s claim relating to actual

payments of funds the customer receives from the Trustee in connection with this 

SIPA Proceeding. The DRA does not and will not alter or limit any rights a 

customer has, or any standing a customer has, to assert claims against third parties 

other than the Released Persons (as defined in the DRA) and to recover against 

such third parties on unsatisfied claims. The Trustee has considerable discretion in 

carrying out his responsibilities, to an even greater extent than a trustee in a 

bankruptcy liquidation, including the obtaining of releases and assignments for 

former customer’s claims against third parties. SEC v. Albert & Maguire Secs. Co., 

560 F.2d 569, 573 (3d Cir. 1977) (trustee’s broad powers extend to obtaining 

assignments of a customer’s claims against third parties); see also 1 Collier on 

Bankruptcy ¶ 12.02 (16th ed. 2011). The document that the Trustee requests of 

each claimant is consistent with the goals of having similar, parallel claims 

processes for commodities and securities customers. It is prudent in terms of 

preserving standing for possible recovery of customer property and an application 

of principles consistent with the Second Circuit’s ruling regarding assignment of 

claims under Section 541(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. See Bankruptcy Servs., 

Inc. v. Ernst & Young (In re CBI Holding Co.), 529 F.3d 432, 457 (2d Cir. 2008).

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 23 of 29
A-6

6. Informal Response of Attorney George V. Utlik (Arent Fox LLP) (Undocketed)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 Respondent seeks clarification as to the Trustee’s meaning and 

intent behind the term “Finalized Claim” and how the claims are 

allowed for purposes of the First Interim Claims Distribution.

 Specifically, do the Finalized Claims include both (a) claims as 

received and agreed to by customers based on the Trustee’s 

determination and (b) claims that are disputed by customers and 

are either (i) amicably resolved with the Trustee upon entry into 

a stipulation or (ii) determined through judicial intervention 

upon entry of a court order?

 Are Finalized Claims “allowed” and therefore eligible for 

further distributions in their final amount as determined through 

either (a) an agreement with the Trustee or (b) court order?

 Is receipt of the DRA by the Trustee included in the concept of a 

“Finalized Claim”? Is a customer’s right to receive further 

distributions contingent upon the Trustee’s receipt of the DRA?

 In order to receive funds under the proposed First Interim Claims Distribution, 

claimants must have timely filed claims and received determinations of their claims 

from the Trustee. Thereupon, if a claimant agrees with the Trustee’s determination 

of his or her claim and executes the DRA accompanying the Trustee’s claim 

determination, the claimant will be deemed to have a Finalized Claim, eligible for 

distribution under the proposed First Interim Claims Distribution. If a claimant 

disputes the Trustee’s determination of his or her claim, such claim will be deemed 

a Finalized Claim only upon resolution of the dispute—whether that be through 

negotiation between the parties or through judicial resolution culminating in entry 

of a Court order.

 The term “Finalized Claim” was not used in the Proposed Order, originally 

submitted by the Trustee, but rather the Trustee used “allowed claim.” Again, for 

the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee meant that claims that were allowed because of 

the claimant’s agreement and those that were finalized through mutual or judicial 

resolution would be eligible for this proposed First Interim Claims Distribution.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 24 of 29
A-7

1.

Responses Received from Entities Other than Former Public Customers of MFGI

Chapter 11 Trustee’s Statement (Morrison & Foerster LLP) (ECF No. 1215)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 This Statement purports to support the Motion, but requests that 

the Trustee be required to provide extensive data for the benefit 

of MF Global Holdings Ltd. and its creditors. (¶¶ 1–4)

 As detailed in the Omnibus Reply, the Trustee has taken great efforts to conduct this 

SIPA Proceeding with transparency and will continue to do so. The Trustee will 

continue to comply with his reporting requirements as established under SIPA 

§ 78fff-1(c) and by prior order of this Court, and will provide regular status reports 

to the Court and other interested parties, with due regard for preserving estate 

resources and the integrity of his ongoing investigation into the demise of MFGI. 

Additional disclosures are not warranted. 

 This Motion is aimed solely at seeking authorization to distribute customer property

back to former MFGI customers in the most prompt and efficient manner possible, 

and the relief requested is in furtherance of the interests of former MFGI public 

customers. Those customers receive priority treatment by operation of law. 

Possible intercompany claims, subordinated claims, and proprietary trading 

accounts come after them. The holding company and its creditors’ committee, who 

employ some of the principal people who operated the business and presided over 

its demise, can scarcely claim to be unable to know basic information about 

intercompany accounts and outstanding trading relationships. The creditors of the 

holding company cannot blame the MFGI Trustee for the lack, to date, of any 

schedules, bar date, or any real plan for the debtors’ future in the Chapter 11 

Proceeding.

2. Joinder of Statutory Creditors’ Committee of MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al. in Support of Chapter 

11 Trustee (Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

(ECF No. 1277)

Objection Trustee’s Response

 Joins with the Chapter 11 Trustee and does not object to the 

relief sought in the Motion, but requests extensive information 

from the SIPA Trustee as a condition to further distributions to 

customers. (¶¶ 1, 7)

 Annexed a chart of information that the Chapter 11 Committee 

 As detailed in the Omnibus Reply, the Trustee has taken great efforts to conduct 

this SIPA Proceeding with transparency and will continue to do so. The Trustee 

will continue to comply with his reporting requirements as established under SIPA 

§ 78fff-1(c) and by prior order of this Court, and will provide regular status reports 

to the Court and other interested parties, with due regard for preserving estate 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 25 of 29
A-8

incorrectly states is being withheld by the Trustee. (Exhibit C) resources and the integrity of his ongoing investigation into the demise of MFGI. 

Additional disclosures are not warranted. 

 This Motion is aimed solely at seeking authorization to distribute customer 

property back to former MFGI customers in the most prompt and efficient manner 

possible, and the relief requested is in furtherance of the interests of former MFGI 

public customers. Those customers receive priority treatment by operation of law. 

Possible intercompany claims, subordinated claims, and proprietary trading 

accounts come after them. The holding company and its creditors’ committee, who 

employ some of the principal people who operated the business and presided over 

its demise, can scarcely claim to be unable to know basic information about 

intercompany accounts and outstanding trading relationships. The creditors of the 

holding company cannot blame the MFGI Trustee for the lack, to date, of any 

schedules, bar date, or any real plan for the debtors’ future in the Chapter 11 

Proceeding.

 The allegations contained in the Chapter 11 Committee’s chart annexed to their 

Joinder as Exhibit C—while wholly irrelevant to this Motion—include references 

to meetings, discussions, and exchanges of information from which the Chapter 11 

Committee has largely been absent and are inaccurate. In Exhibit B annexed to 

this Omnibus Reply, the Trustee sets the record straight about the status of these 

matters.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 26 of 29
EXHIBIT B

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 27 of 29
B-1

Exhibit B: Trustee’s Responses to Information Requests from Statutory 

Creditors’ Committee of MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al. (Exhibit C to ECF 

No. 1277)

On April 5, 2012 the Statutory Creditors’ Committee of MF Global Holdings Ltd. et al. filed a 

statement (ECF No. 1277) and chart (ECF No. 1277-3) with the Court in this proceeding that 

incorrectly asserts that the SIPA Trustee has failed to respond to or comply with certain requests, 

primarily for information, from the Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd. As detailed 

in the chart below, the SIPA Trustee has not failed to respond to or comply with any such 

requests.

Request 

No.

1

Trustee’s Response

 Request (in less detail) was the subject of a February 29, 2012 meeting between the 

Chapter 11 Trustee and the SIPA Trustee; basic points were discussed; no follow-up 

questions on these topics have since been raised. Shortfall explained as difference 

between customer assets available and estimated claims across all categories of 

customers.

2

 Request was presented at a January 11, 2012 meeting of all global affiliates and was 

rejected by the Joint Special Administrators for MF Global UK Ltd. The SIPA Trustee 

could find no purpose in participating without MF Global UK Ltd.

3

 Request was the subject of a February 29, 2012 meeting between the Chapter 11 Trustee 

and the SIPA Trustee; no follow-up questions on these topics have since been raised.

Efforts to recover funds at depositories and counterparties have been and continue to be 

ongoing.

4  Request was the subject of a February 29, 2012 meeting between the Chapter 11 Trustee 

and the SIPA Trustee; no follow-up questions on these topics have since been raised.

5

 Request was the subject of a March 20, 2012 meeting between the Chapter 11 Trustee 

and the SIPA Trustee. The SIPA Trustee received limited follow-up questions on March 

26, 2012 and the SIPA Trustee is in the process of responding to those requests.

 The persons most knowledgeable of this Request are and have been in the employment 

of the Chapter 11 Trustee. The Chapter 11 Trustee and his consultants had previously 

looked to the SIPA Trustee to answer questions where the relevant information is 

already within their custody, possession, and control. 

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 28 of 29
B-2

Request 

No.

6

Trustee’s Response

 Request was the subject of a March 20, 2012 meeting between the Chapter 11 Trustee 

and the SIPA Trustee. The SIPA Trustee received limited follow-up questions on March 

26, 2012 and the SIPA Trustee is in the process of responding to those requests.

 The persons most knowledgeable of this Request are and have been in the employment 

of the Chapter 11 Trustee. The Chapter 11 Trustee and his consultants had previously 

looked to the SIPA Trustee to answer questions where the relevant information is 

already within their custody, possession, and control. 

7

 The SIPA Trustee’s professionals have fully complied with this Request and produced 

documents. The SIPA Trustee cannot attest to the completeness or accuracy of ordinary 

course documents of MFGI. MFGI was operated as a subsidiary of Holdings at the time.

8

 Request was the subject of a March 20, 2012 meeting between the Chapter 11 Trustee 

and the SIPA Trustee, but no questions were raised during the meeting concerning this 

claim. The SIPA Trustee had previously sent documentation to the Chapter 11 Trustee 

concerning this claim and requested that they share their views on such documentation.

 The persons most knowledgeable of this Request are and have been in the employment 

of the Chapter 11 Trustee. The Chapter 11 Trustee and his consultants had previously 

looked to the SIPA Trustee to answer questions where the relevant information is 

already within their custody, possession, and control. 

9  Request has been tabled at the behest of the Chapter 11 Trustee in favor of focusing on 

other issues.

10  Request has been tabled at the behest of the Chapter 11 Trustee in favor of focusing on 

other issues.

11  Request has been tabled at the behest of the Chapter 11 Trustee in favor of focusing on 

other issues.

12  Request has been tabled at the behest of the Chapter 11 Trustee in favor of focusing on 

other issues.

13

 Request has not previously been made of the SIPA Trustee. Some requests clearly 

improper and overbroad. Claims of non-public customers are not addressed on a priority 

basis.

11-02790-mg Doc 1297 Filed 04/10/12 Entered 04/10/12 10:42:19 Main Document 

 Pg 29 of 29