Hughes 

Hubbard 

VIA ECF AND BY HAND 

Honorable Martin Glenn 

United States Bankruptcy Court 

Southern District ofNew York 

One Bowling Green 

New York, New York 10004 

January 27, 2012 

Re: In re MF Global Inc., Case No. 11-2790 (MG) SIPA 

Teleconference Hearing Set for January 30, 2012 

Dear Judge Glenn: 

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP 

One Battery Park Plaza 

New York, New York 10004-1482 

Telephone: 212-837-6000 

Fax: 212-422-4726 

hugheshubbard.com 

James B. KobakJr 

Direct Dial: 212-837-6757 

kobak@hugheshubbard.com 

We represent James W. Giddens (the "Trustee"), the SIPA Trustee for the 

liquidation ofMF Global Inc. ("MFGI"). We write regarding your Order (ECF 867), issued 

January 23, 2012, regarding potential discrepancies in the amount or type of certificates of title 

and warehouse receipts ("Physical Assets" or "Physicals") that were held by MFGI for its 

commodities customers at the time of its liquidation (the "January 23rd Order"). 

Shortly after the Court issued the January 23rd Order, the Trustee posted the 

January 23rd Order to his website (www.mfglobaltrustee.com) and emailed a copy of the 

January 23rd Order to all customers for whom the Trustee is still holding Physicals for which we 

have email addresses. Separately, the Trustee's counsel attempted to contact by phone or email 

to all customers for whom the Trustee is still holding Physicals who had not previously contacted 

the Trustee with instructions to liquidate or transfer their Physicals and alerted them to the 

January 23rd Order and pending liquidation date. 

In response to the January 23rd Order, the Trustee received twelve responses from 

customers or their counsel (the "Customer Correspondence"). Ten of the twelve Customer 

Correspondence simply requested confirmation of the amount and type of Physicals held by the 

Trustee on their behalf. In each and every case, the number and type of Physicals held by the 

Trustee was consistent with the customer's records and we confirmed as much to the customers 

or their representative. 

The remaining two Customer Correspondence do not meet the criteria regarding 

the potential discrepancies in the amount or type of Physicals as contemplated by the January 

23rd Order. 

New York l!l Washint,>ion, D.C. LosAngelPs Miami .Jersey Paris 
One customer, Ms. Daria Fane, who appeared at the January 19 status hearing, 

does not allege any discrepancy between the number and type of Physicals currently held by the 

Trustee for her account(s), but challenges the valuation of her total account value (and 

consequently, the amount needed for the required deposit) and requests the Court order that the 

Physicals not be liquidated until the parties can reach agreement. We submit that the 

methodology used to calculate the amount required to be deposit was uniform among all 

customers; that we provided Ms. Fane with the various amounts used in the calculations; andas with all other similarly situated customers- Ms. Fane's rights to dispute anything about the 

Trustee's treatment of this property (including that the Trustee received an inappropriate deposit 

amount) is reserved for the expedited claims process. 

Another customer, Mr. Paul Hamann, also does not dispute the number or type of 

Physicals held by the Trustee for his account, but contends that warehouse receipts should be 

treated as "securities," presumably under SIP A. Upon consultation with Mr. Hamann, Mr. 

Hamann agrees that his issue is best suited to be raised after the determination of his customer 

claim. 

We submit that issues raised by both Ms. Fane and Mr. Hamann would be more 

appropriately addressed through the claims process. 

Additionally, there had been several pre-existing investigations into potential 

discrepancies between the number and type of Physicals held by the Trustee for MFGI's former 

customers- most notably, for a Trace Schmeltz client who informed the Court of the thenunresolved issue at the January 19 status hearing. Each one ofthese pre-existing investigations 

centered around a customer's pre-SIP A liquidation request to MFGI to have their Physicals 

transferred from MFGI. Upon investigation, the Trustee was able to confirm whether or not such 

requests had been processed by MFGI pre-SIP A liquidation and reflected on the books and 

records ofMFGI. In all such cases, there is now no discrepancy between the number and type of 

Physicals currently being held by the Trustee (and in most cases, as was the situation with Mr. 

Schmeltz's client, it is because the investigation revealed that MFGI's books and records indicate 

that no such Physicals are still being held by the Trustee; we were then able to assist the 

customers with receiving their pre-SIP A liquidation property by informing the repositories 

according! y). 

The Trustee believes that these efforts have resolved all issues that the Court 

intended to address at the telephonic hearing currently scheduled for January 30, 2012 at 

4:00p.m. EST pursuant to the January 23rd Order. However, counsel remains available at that or 

any other time should the Court wish to address these matters further. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

James B. Kobak, Jr.