For The Defense: State Courts Reject The Ponzi Scheme Presumptions In Fraudulent Transfer Actions

by Fox Rothschild LLP

Bernie Madoff in New York, Tom Petters in Minneapolis, Allen Stanford in Houston, and Darren Berg in Seattle lead a rogues’ gallery of infamous Ponzi schemers.  All are now serving time in prison.  But the civil litigation arising from their Ponzi schemes and the Ponzi schemes of other less notorious fraudsters is not over.  Ponzi schemes have spawned thousands of fraudulent transfer cases.  Anglo-American fraudulent transfer law has a long history dating back four centuries to the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, enacted in 1571, and to the first reported fraudulent transfer case, Twyne’s Case, decided in 1601.  But fraudulent transfer law is far from settled.  In recent years, especially in fraudulent transfer cases arising out of Ponzi schemes, the law developed rapidly in a direction favoring the plaintiffs.  However, in 2015 and 2016, the direction began to turn.

In an effort to obtain funds for the victims of the Ponzi schemes, bankruptcy trustees and receivers have commenced fraudulent transfer cases to recover payments made by the Ponzi schemer.  Many of the defendants had no knowledge of the Ponzi scheme.  The defendants had innocently loaned money or provided goods and services.  These defendants did nothing wrong.  Nevertheless, most of the defendants lost—at least in federal courts.

The federal courts frequently apply Ponzi scheme presumptions that set high barriers for defendants.  In 2015 and 2016, however, opinions issued by the highest courts of Minnesota and Texas rejected the Ponzi scheme presumptions.  Before discussing these recent state court decisions, it is best to put the decisions into context—first by discussing Ponzi schemes and then by describing the federal courts’ Ponzi scheme presumptions.

There is no precise definition of a Ponzi scheme.  The Ninth Circuit describes a Ponzi scheme as:

. . . a financial fraud that induces investment by promising extremely high, risk-free returns, usually in a short time period, from an allegedly legitimate business venture.  The fraud consists of funneling proceeds from new investors to previous investors in the guise of profits from the alleged business venture, thereby cultivating the illusion that a legitimate profit-making business opportunity exists and inducing further investment.

Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762, 767 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008).

The Fifth Circuit describes a Ponzi scheme as:

. . . a pyramid scheme where earlier investors are paid from the investments of more recent investors, rather than from any underlying business concern, until the scheme ceases to attract new investors and the pyramid collapses.

Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 712 F.3d 185, 188 n.1 (5th Cir. 2013).

In fraudulent transfer cases in which the transferor has been running a Ponzi scheme, many courts apply what have become known as Ponzi scheme presumptions.  All of the reported decisions that have applied the Ponzi scheme presumptions are from federal courts.  The cases typically originate as suits brought by bankruptcy trustees or receivers in cases in which the Ponzi schemer or one of his or her companies is the debtor.  The bankruptcy trustee seeks a judgment in the amount that the Ponzi schemer paid to the defendant.  Even though many fraudulent transfer cases are brought pursuant to a state’s version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), the federal courts that apply the Ponzi scheme presumptions cite as authority other federal cases.  No state supreme court has yet applied the Ponzi scheme presumptions.

There are three Ponzi scheme presumptions.

  1. Transfers from the debtor in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme are presumed to be made with fraudulent intent. The most commonly applied Ponzi scheme presumption is the presumption that a transfer of property from the debtor in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme is a transfer made with fraudulent intent.  When a court applies the Ponzi scheme “fraudulent intent” presumption, the trustee need only produce evidence that the debtor-transferor who was running a Ponzi scheme made payments to the defendant-transferee.  The burden then shifts to the defendant-transferee, who must prove the affirmative defense that it accepted the payment:  (1) in exchange for reasonably equivalent value, and (2) in good faith.

Four Circuits, the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh, have applied the presumption that a transfer of property in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme is made with fraudulent intent.  E.g., Janvey v. Brown, 767 F.3d 430, 439 (5th Cir. 2014); Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d at 770 (9th Cir. 2008); Klein v. Cornelius, 786 F.3d 1310, 1320 (10th Cir. 2015); Wiand v. Lee, 753 F.3d 1194, 1201 (11th Cir. 2014).

  1. The debtor who runs a Ponzi scheme is presumed to be insolvent. Insolvency is not a necessary element in Ponzi scheme cases in which the trustee alleges actual fraud.  But trustees often also allege constructive fraud, and in constructive fraud cases insolvency or financial distress is a necessary element.  Four Circuits, the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh, have applied the presumption that a debtor who is running a Ponzi scheme is insolvent or in financial distress.  g., Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006); Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d at 770-71 (9th Cir. 2008); Klein v. Cornelius, 786 F.3d at 1320 (10th Cir. 2015); Wiand v. Lee, 753 F.3d at 1201 (11th Cir. 2014).
  2. “Value” is limited to the principal or original investment portion of the obligation. Sections 8(a) and 8(d) of the UFTA provide a defendant-transferee with an affirmative defense.  The defendant must prove that it accepted the transfer in good faith, and that it gave “value” in exchange.  To the extent that the defendant-transferee gave “value” to the debtor, the defendant can retain the property it received from the debtor.

“Value” is defined in Section 3 of the UFTA to include the satisfaction of an antecedent debt.  Notwithstanding the statutory definition, courts that apply the third Ponzi scheme presumption limit “value” to satisfaction of the principal portion of the debt or to payment of the amount of the original investment.  These courts presume that “value” does not include the interest or profits that a debtor owes to the transferee.  In cases where the debtor-transferor repaid principal plus interest or an amount above the original investment, the courts that apply this Ponzi scheme presumption limit “value” to principal or to the amount of the original investment.  They avoid as fraudulent transfers the debtor’s payments of interest or profits.

Five Circuits, the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh, have applied this Ponzi scheme presumption and limited the meaning of “value” to the amount of the principal portion of the debt or the amount of the original investment.  E.g., Janvey v. Brown, 767 F.3d 430, 440-42 (5th Cir. 2014); Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750, 756-59 (7th Cir. 1995); Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d at 772 (9th Cir. 2008); Sender v. Buchanan (In re Hedged-Investments Associates, Inc.), 84 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 1996); Perkins v. Haines, 661 F.3d 623, 627-28 (11th Cir. 2011).

Two recent state supreme court decisions examine and reject the Ponzi scheme presumptions.

Finn v. Alliance Bank, 860 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 2015), casts a cold eye on all three of the Ponzi scheme presumptions.  Finn examines the reasoning that supports the presumptions, and then states persuasive reasons to reject the presumptions.  Finn concludes that none of the three Ponzi scheme presumptions is justified by the text of UFTA.

Finn observes that the Ponzi scheme presumption on fraudulent intent requires a court to conclusively presume that fraudulent intent accompanies all transfers by the debtor in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme.  Finn then looks to the text of UFTA to see whether there is any statutory justification for relieving the plaintiff “of its burden of proving—or for preventing the transferee from attempting to disprove—fraudulent intent.”

UFTA contains eleven non-exclusive factors which courts may consider in determining actual fraudulent intent.  These factors, many of which were enumerated in Twyne’s Case, 76 Engl. Rep. 809 (Star Chamber 1601), are commonly referred to as “badges of fraud.”  Finn notes that these factors are non-exclusive, so that a court could properly consider as a factor a debtor’s operation of a Ponzi scheme.  “But the Legislature’s enumeration of a specific list of badges of fraud, none of which are conclusive, precludes an interpretation that it intended a non-enumerated badge of fraud to be conclusive.”  860 N.W.2d at 647.

Finn states that there is nothing in UFTA to justify a presumption that transfers from a debtor who is operating a Ponzi scheme were made with fraudulent intent.

Finn observes that the Ponzi scheme presumption of insolvency requires a court to presume that a debtor who operates a Ponzi scheme is insolvent when it transfers assets.  Finn looks to the text of the statute to see whether it supports the Ponzi scheme presumption of insolvency.

Finn notes that UFTA:  “does contain a presumption that allows a court to conclude that a debtor is insolvent, but the presumption does not depend on the existence of a Ponzi scheme.  Rather, ‘[a] debtor who is not generally paying debts as they become due is presumed to be insolvent.’”  860 N.W.2d at 648 (emphasis in original).  Finn concludes that the Ponzi scheme presumption of insolvency “lacks textual support.”

There is a second reason why Finn rejects the Ponzi scheme presumption of insolvency.  The presumption may—in some cases—result in the wrong conclusion as a matter of fact.  Finn notes that there is a temporal aspect to fraudulent transfer cases.  The trustee must prove that the debtor was insolvent at the time that the debtor made the transfer.

The temporal element is important because, as a factual matter, it is not at all clear that every fraudulent investment arrangement that is later determined to be a Ponzi scheme necessarily will have been insolvent from its inception.  For example, it is not hard to imagine a debtor that begins as a legitimate business and eventually turns to fraud. . .  Similarly, a debtor could have assets or legitimate business operations aside from the Ponzi scheme . . . .  Such an entity could be financially stable for a time, whether its stability is measured by the technical definition of insolvency in [UFTA § 2] or the alternate methods of measuring financial distress in [UFTA §§ 4(a)(2)(i) and (ii)].  Such a Ponzi scheme may be rare, but when the statute requires a creditor to prove a fraudulent transfer claim,  a conclusive presumption that a Ponzi scheme is insolvent from its inception may be incorrect, both as a matter of law and as a matter of fact.

860 N.W.2d at 649.

There is a third reason why Finn rejects the Ponzi scheme presumption of insolvency.  Finn criticizes the legal scholarship of those courts that rely on the original Ponzi scheme case, Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1 (1924), for the proposition that Ponzi schemes, as a matter of law, are insolvent from their inception.  The particular postage-stamp swindle operated by Charles Ponzi never operated legitimately and was insolvent from its beginning, but the original Ponzi case does not stand for the proposition that all Ponzi schemes are necessarily insolvent from their inception.  860 N.W.2d at 649.

Finn rejects the Ponzi scheme presumption of insolvency for three reasons: the presumption lacks textual, factual and scholarly support.

Finn observes that the Ponzi scheme value presumption requires the court to presume that a debtor operating a Ponzi scheme cannot receive reasonably equivalent value for the “interest” or “profits” it pays to investors.  Once again, Finn looks to the text of the statute to see whether it supports the Ponzi scheme value presumption.  UFTA includes in its definition of “value” “the satisfaction of an antecedent debt.”  After considering case law and the statutory definitions of “debt,” Finn concludes “that any legally enforceable right to payment against the debtor is sufficient to qualify as antecedent debt.”  860 N.W.2d at 651.

Finn observes that courts that apply the Ponzi scheme value presumption deem a contract between the operator of a Ponzi scheme and an investor to be unenforceable by the investor as a matter of public policy to the extent that the investor seeks a return in excess of its original principal.  Finn identifies two principles that guide the reasoning of courts that apply the Ponzi scheme value presumption.  The first principle is that, due to the nature of Ponzi schemes, the money paid to the investors comes solely from money stolen from other investors.  This is true of some Ponzi schemes, like the original scheme run by Charles Ponzi, but it is not true of all Ponzi schemes, some of which have a legitimate source of earnings.  The second principle is “a dubious assumption about the purpose of fraudulent transfer laws,” to achieve greater equity in favor of unsatisfied creditors and investors.  Finn is blunt.  “[E]quality among a debtor’s creditors, even if they are the victims of a Ponzi scheme, is not the purpose” of fraudulent transfer law.  860 N.W.2d at 652.

Finn states that payment of an honest debt is not fraudulent.  A payment is constructively fraudulent “only if it depletes the assets of the debtor without a reasonably equivalent reduction in the debtor’s liabilities.”  860 N.W.2d at 652.  Finn rejects the Ponzi scheme value presumption.

Finn, the first decision by a state supreme court to address the applicability of the Ponzi scheme presumptions in a case brought under UFTA, rejects all three presumptions.

On June 30, 2015, the Fifth Circuit certified The Golf Channel case to the Texas Supreme Court asking a question regarding the interpretation of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act as applied in a Ponzi scheme case.  This is novel.  The Golf Channel is the first federal case to seek an authoritative interpretation of UFTA, a state statute, from the highest court of the state.

The Golf Channel is one of many fraudulent transfer cases that resulted from Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme.  Stanford owned Stanford International Bank and numerous other related entities that issued high interest certificates of deposit to the public.  He represented that the investors’ funds would be reinvested in high quality securities.  In fact, however, much of the investors’ money was not reinvested in securities but was used mainly to pay other investors the promised returns.

Stanford became a sponsor of an annual PGA Tour event, the Stanford St. Jude’s Championship.  The Golf Channel provided commercials, live coverage of the tournament, messaging regarding Stanford’s charitable contributions, and other marketing activities.  Over time, Stanford paid $5.9 million to The Golf Channel in exchange for The Golf Channel’s services.

The receiver sued under the actual fraud provision of UFTA to recover $5.9 million from The Golf Channel.  The parties stipulated to the Ponzi scheme fraudulent intent presumption.  There was no dispute about The Golf Channel’s good faith.  The issue before the court was whether The Golf Channel provided “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for Stanford’s $5.9 million in payments.

The Fifth Circuit initially held that for purposes of a fraudulent transfer defense, “value” is not market value but the benefit received by the debtor’s creditors.  The Golf Channel requested that the Fifth Circuit certify to the Texas Supreme Court the question of the definition of “value.”  The Fifth Circuit agreed that there is no decision of the Texas Supreme Court that resolves the issue, and it certified the question.

On April 1, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court issued its decision.  Janvey v. The Golf Channel, 487 S.W. 3d 560 (2016).  The Texas Supreme Court, like the Minnesota Supreme Court, said that there was nothing in the text of UFTA that requires or permits a court to apply in Ponzi scheme cases a different standard of interpretation from other fraudulent transfer cases.

We therefore conduct the same “value” and “reasonably equivalent value” analysis inquiry under TUFTA regardless of whether the debtor was operating a Ponzi scheme or a legitimate enterprise.  We ask whether the debtor received value (i.e. whether the debtor received consideration with objective, economic value, not merely consideration with some subjective, ephemeral, or emotional value) and whether the value exchanged was reasonably equivalent.

487 S.W. 3d at 581.

The Texas Supreme Court added:

. . . the value of the services or goods provided to a debtor does not hinge on whether a debtor utilizes services or goods to further an illegal scheme or to pursue a legitimate business endeavor.  Valuing consideration based on how the debtor decides to use it improperly applies a post hoc evaluation of the transaction.


The conclusion follows:

Whether a debtor obtained reasonably equivalent value in a particular transaction is determined from a reasonable creditor’s perspective at the time of the exchange, without regard to the subjective needs or perspectives of the debtor or transferee and without the wisdom hindsight often brings.  . . . we conclude the reasonably equivalent value requirement . . . is satisfied when the transferee fully performed in an arm’s-length transaction in the ordinary course of business at market rates.

487 S.W. 3d at 582.

The Golf Channel can keep the money it was paid in exchange for its services.

For the Defense – A Practice Tip

A defendant who is sued in bankruptcy court or federal district court under the state UFTA should promptly file a motion under the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act or other similar statute or court rule.  The motion should request the federal court to certify to the highest state court all material questions of interpretation of UFTA that have not yet been decided by the highest state court.  The list of such questions may include the following regarding the applicability of the Ponzi scheme presumptions in a fraudulent transfer case arising out of a Ponzi scheme:

  • Whether the plaintiff must offer evidence proving that the debtor-transferor made the transfer with intent to hinder, delay or defraud, or whether such intent is presumed.
  • Whether the plaintiff must offer evidence proving that the debtor-transferor was insolvent on the date of the transfer, or whether insolvency is presumed.
  • Whether “value” in UFTA sections 8(a) and 8(d) is limited to the amount of the principal portion of a debt or of the original investment and excludes satisfaction of the interest portion of a debt or a contractual obligation to pay a profit, notwithstanding UFTA section 3(a) which includes in the definition of “value” satisfaction of an antecedent debt, and makes no distinction between the principal portion and the interest portion of the debt or between the amount of the original investment and a contractual profit.
  • Whether “value” means something different from what it means in fraudulent transfer cases that do not arise out of a Ponzi scheme.

Finn and The Golf Channel indicate that the transferee-defendant will be more likely to escape the constrictions of the Ponzi scheme presumptions in state court than in federal court.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Fox Rothschild LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Fox Rothschild LLP

Fox Rothschild LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at:

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.