Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The answer is no. Irving H. Picard, the trustee (the Trustee) for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), appointed pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), may not clawback money paid out by BLMIS to hundreds of its customers. This was the recent decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Picard v. Ida Fishman Revocable Trust (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Seurities LLC), 773 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2014), and the decision continues the recent trend of extending the reach of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e)'s safe harbor protections. But, why not? Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars could be recovered and then paid out ratably to all BLMIS customers? Simply put, a SIPA trustee can only avoid and recover transferred funds that are voidable under the Bankruptcy Code, and section 546(e) provides an important exception to a trustee's clawback powers, which was triggered in this case. This article explores the arguments advanced in support of, and in opposition to, avoiding the payments made by BLMIS to its customers.
The Relevant Madoff Facts
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.