Madoff and the Wilpons

Can someone familiar with this lawsuit from Picard explain this to me.  What I think I know is that the Wilpons invested with Madoff and withdrew there funds periodically.  In the end, when Madoff was found guilty, the Wilpons were not invested with him (at that time).  So is Picard saying that anyone who gave money to Madoff should give it all back, or just the interest that was given to them for that investment? 

I guess that there is also some accusations that the Wilpons knew Madoff and were aware of the scam and were given inside information on when to withdraw their funds.

I just was wondering about whether a person who invested with the man, and got out in time, owes money to the unfortunate people who did not get out in time?

I think the main thing is this....Picard is claiming that the people he is representing lost hundreds of millions of dollars from investing with Madoff. Meanwhile, the Wilpons actually made hundreds of millions of dollars investing with Madoff. Picard wants the Wilpons to give back the money they made to be distributed among the people that lost money with Madoff.

The Wilpons were tight with Madoff. 

Piccard is saying the Wilpon's should have known it was a Ponzi scheme and that is total BS. Also, Piccard is trying to go after assets he is claiming the Wilpons acquired with false profits they made with Madoff, more BS.

Not many people are talking about the millions upon millions of dollars Oiccard's lawfirm is makming on this case.

Piccard is saying the Wilpon's should have known it was a Ponzi scheme and that is total BS. Also, Piccard is trying to go after assets he is claiming the Wilpons acquired with false profits they made with Madoff, more BS.

Not many people are talking about the millions upon millions of dollars Oiccard's lawfirm is makming on this case.

You dont find it suspicious that right before the ax hit, the Wilpons knew to pull out?  If not then you are delusional. The Met organization is playing on blood money. Wilpon needs to sell the team.  The Mets have enough issues without that negative association.

The Wilpons didn't pull  all of their money out right before this all happened. They had money with Madoff for years and over time they were net winners and they have not disputed returning money to the victims. People make it seem like they are reffusing to return any monery and that is just not the case.

This guy Piccrard is out to line how own pockets at this point and the Wilpons are now his biggest target.

The Wilpons didn't pull  all of their money out right before this all happened. They had money with Madoff for years and over time they were net winners[...]

They were not "winners" because the money was not really invested.  He took money from other people and redistributed it to those that he wanted to give it to.  No one should walk away with more than they "invested" minus a pro rata share of the money spent by Madoff himself, which will never be recovered fully.

The Wilpons were "winners" in this Ponzi scheme because in the end, they took out more money then they put in.

Piccard is trying to say they should have to give back anything they obtained with money they "made" from Madoff. The Wilpons are not saying they will not give money back to Piccard but are disputing the total Piccard is saying the owe back.

Quote from: pmg911 on August 08, 2011, 10:49:16 AM

The Wilpons didn't pull  all of their money out right before this all happened. They had money with Madoff for years and over time they were net winners[...]

They were not "winners" because the money was not really invested.  He took money from other people and redistributed it to those that he wanted to give it to.  No one should walk away with more than they "invested" minus a pro rata share of the money spent by Madoff himself, which will never be recovered fully.

This is kinda what I was getting at with the original post.  Maybe this example isn't perfect, but for example.  You deposit money in an interest earning savings account.  You withdraw it later.  Down the road you find out that the bank somehow wasn't legitimate.  Does that mean the interest you earned has to be given back and shared amongst all the others who were ripped off?  I wouldn't think so.  At the time you did business with them, to your knowledge they were a legitimate bank.  Wouldn't you expect Madoff to have had some sort of license or credentials.   Also in the example above, there must be some statute of limitations on when you can be held responsible for the interest you earned.

I just think that 'IF' they didn't have any knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, then they shouldn't be liable for anything that they were given.

Now do I wish they sold the Mets ... YES!, but that has nothing to do with how I feel about Piccard and what he is trying to do.

Quote from: pmg911 on August 04, 2011, 11:34:03 AM

Piccard is saying the Wilpon's should have known it was a Ponzi scheme and that is total BS. Also, Piccard is trying to go after assets he is claiming the Wilpons acquired with false profits they made with Madoff, more BS.

Not many people are talking about the millions upon millions of dollars Oiccard's lawfirm is makming on this case.

You dont find it suspicious that right before the ax hit, the Wilpons knew to pull out?  If not then you are delusional. The Met organization is playing on blood money. Wilpon needs to sell the team.  The Mets have enough issues without that negative association.

From what I read, they would take concession and ticket money during the season and invest it with him for a short term windfall, then turn around, withdraw the money and interest and use it for expenses or payroll.  The article I read implied that they did this on a regular seasonal basis.  There was no mention of them pulling out right before Madoff was caught.

From ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/32323/mets-morning-briefing-8-17-11

• Irving Picard, the trustee trying to recover funds for victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme, received a favorable Manhattan federal appeals court ruling Tuesday that should impact the Wilpons. The court upheld Picard's standard for whether a person is labeled a net winner or loser in the Ponzi scheme. His standard: How much money did the person/entity invest versus how much did the entity/person withdraw?

The Wilpons and others had asserted that they should be viewed as losers because their bogus statements showed significant -- but nonexistent -- investments at the time Madoff was caught. (The Wilpons thought they had $500 million still invested, if memory serves correct, and asserted that was their loss.)

"The (Madoff) customer statements reflect impossible transactions and the Trustee is not obligated to step into the shoes of the defrauder or treat customer statements as reflecting reality," the court determined, according to Newsday.

Still, Wilpons' attorneys nonetheless assert his family should be protected -- at least in terms of retaining the principal they invested -- because Madoff was a broker and therefore it was not their responsibility to determine whether the swindler was aboveboard. Judge Jed S. Rakoff on Friday afternoon could rule on the Wilpons' motion to dismiss, or rule in their favor as a summary judgment, on Picard's $1 billion lawsuit against them.

The Wilpons could extricate themselves Friday from the $700 million in principal Picard wants the family to forfeit because he alleges they should have known what's going on. Yet he appeals court ruling should make it more difficult for them to escape being responsible for $300 million in alleged "fictitious profits" from the Ponzi scheme. Picard seeks that money whether or not the Wilpons should have known about the corruption.

Write Richard Sandomir and Ken Belson in the Times:

(Judge) Rakoff, who is known for his independent streak, could be bound by the appeals court’s decision concerning Picard’s claim for $300 million in fictitious profits. Anthony Sabino, a bankruptcy lawyer and law professor at St. John’s University, said that the court’s ruling in favor of Picard’s net-winners formula was based on long-established law that is “unassailable.” He added, “The $700 million is on shaky ground and at risk of being thrown out, but the $300 million, the base amount if you will, is made out of solid concrete with rebar built in.”

The Wilpons know they are going to have to give money back. If they didn't think they would have to pay something they would not have agreed to let former Gov. Mario Cuomo try to mediate a settlement.