Even though the private foundation of Dayle and Michael Katz (the “Michael Foundation”), like the private foundation of Iris and Saul Katz, took ample time until February 1, 2013 to prepare its Form 990-PF, such Form 990-PF suffers from a scarcity of information as to the Michael Foundation’s involvement with Madoff. However, the Michael Foundation’s situation is very different from that of the Saul Foundation.
Even though the private charitable foundation of Saul and Iris Katz took ample time until February 1, 2013 to prepare its 2011 Form 990-PF, such Form 990-PF suffers from a disappointing and manifest scarcity of information as to involvement with Madoff and the Settlement Agreement with Madoff Trustee Picard.
This blog series has been monitoring the quality of disclosures being made by private charitable foundations of the Wilpon and Katz families in their IRS Forms 990-PF as to involvement with Madoff and the Settlement Agreement made with Trustee Irving Picard approved on May 31, 2012. The Forms 990-PF provide not only a window into the internal operations of the foundations but also allow for analysis of the quality of the disclosures made as to a matter that has received wide and continuous publicity.
This posting will address the question of what officer of a charity should sign the 2012 Form 990 to be filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in light of the requirements of the IRS contained in the Form 990 itself and the IRS Instructions for Form 990.
It is perplexing that Forms 990-PF filed with the Internal Revenue Service by various Wilpon family private foundations provide no reference to the assignment to Madoff Trustee Irving Picard of their allowed net equity claims and the encumbering of their “Estimated SIPC Recovery – Madoff Theft Loss,” even though such 2011 Forms 990-PF were filed well after Federal District Court approval on May 31, 2012 of the Settlement Agreement dated April 13, 2012 between Picard and the Wilpons.
The return of grants by a charity to private foundations related to the the sons of Bernard L. Madoff evidence that some charities may be exercising greater caution in their gift acceptance policies as a result of the dramatic and sometimes devastating consequences that highly respected charities have suffered from involvement in Ponzi schemes.
The numerous former defendants, constituting the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests (the “Wilpons”), in the celebrated but now-settled case brought by Irving H. Picard, the Trustee in the Madoff liquidation, will benefit greatly from the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the net equity calculation formula adopted by Picard.
Having settled their long-running case with Irving Picard, the numerous defendants, constituting the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests (the “Wilpons”), are cheering Picard on to recover every dollar that he can in his mass appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a number of Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s earlier orders and opinions in the Wilpons’ case.
Would the great Yogi Berra, who is famous for saying, “It ain’t over till it’s over,” be likely to agree that, with the May 31, 2012 approval by Federal District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the settlement agreement between Picard and the Wilpons, it is over? There appear to be a few loose strands still present, within the Wilpons’ case itself and generally for the many unresolved Madoff/Picard matters.
Those who were eagerly anticipating the final dénouement on May 15, 2012, in the epic battle between Madoff Trustee Irving Picard and the numerous defendants, constituting the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests, will apparently have to wait at least until May 31, 2012. The approval of the final Settlement Agreement by Federal District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, originally scheduled to occur at a hearing on May 15, 2012 at 4 p.m., has been postponed until May 31, 2012 at 4 p.m.
This Installment raises some questions regarding the inclusion of the private charitable foundations, which Madoff Trustee Irving Picard had sued for recovery of “fictitious profits” and principal, as parties to the global Settlement Agreement between Picard and the Wilpons.
This Installment addresses some of the effects on, and implications for, certain charitable private foundations and their respective officers, directors, trustees and foundation managers under the proposed settlement agreement between Madoff Trustee Irving Picard and the numerous defendants, constituting the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests.
Adam Rubin of ESPN reported that Madoff Trustee Irving Picard filed court papers on April 13, 2012, seeking approval of the settlement, which was reached on March 19 with numerous defendants, constituting the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests.
While the Memorandum of Understanding of March 19, 2012 respecting the settlement of the Picard/Wilpons/Mets litigation in the Madoff case stated that it was a legally binding document, the Memorandum contained a number of conditions to finalizing the settlement to be completed on or before Friday, the 13th of April, 2012.
Today, a settlement was reached between Madoff Trustee Irving Picard and the numerous defendants, the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests (the “Wilpons”), which requires the Wilpons to pay $162 million to Picard but appears to be a very favorable result, perhaps actually an outright victory, in their efforts to keep control of the Mets.
Judge Rakoff’s latest order, issued virtually on the eve of the trial between the Madoff trustee and the Wilpon-Katz-Mets interests, leaves the parties without clarity on an important trial issue.
The effect of Judge Rakoff’s Order yesterday in the Wilpons/Picard litigation and a likely March 19 jury trial date renders uncertain continuing efforts of the Wilpons to sell up to $200 million in minority interests in the Mets.
This posting will focus on the implications of recent postings on ESPN.com regarding the multiple events that are occurring with respect to the continuing economic and legal challenges facing the New York Mets and their owners in the Madoff aftermath.
In his latest Opinion and Order of January 17, 2012, Judge Rakoff denied the motion of Irving Picard, who sought an immediate interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of Judge Rakoff’s earlier ruling that greatly limited the amount that Picard could seek to recover from the Wilpon interests. As a result Judge Rakoff’s “fixed and firm” trial date of March 19, 2012 remains unaffected.
In his Thanksgiving Eve Order, Judge Jed Rakoff granted a modest and uncertain victory to Irving Picard, the Trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy proceeding, for a jury trial on those of the Trustee’s claims that seek to avoid transfers from Madoff to the Wilpon Interests as fraudulent.
There has been a disappointing lack of transparency evidenced by the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged — a defendant in a clawback action recently filed by the Madoff trustee — in its failure to provide meaningful public disclosures of the magnitude of its investments with Madoff and its loss and exposure to risk, either in media releases or in filings of Forms 990 with the Internal Revenue Service.
Trustee Irving Picard has addressed charities that invested with Bernard Madoff in a perplexing and inconsistent manner, virtually to the point of arbitrariness and unfairness. His new $5.2 million lawsuit against the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged not only reaffirms his erratic behavior in this area, but also suggests that Picard may have other purposes for his actions.
This posting will focus on the position of Madoff Trustee Irving Picard that the recent opinion of Judge Jed S. Rakoff is arbitrary and unfair, especially in view of the inconsistent decisions, perhaps to the point of unfairness, that Picard himself has made relative to certain charities that invested with Madoff.
This posting will focus on an apparent misunderstanding among the Wilpon Interests’ team as to the meaning of one aspect of Judge Rakoff’s opinion and order yesterday relating to the size of their potential exposure to fictitious profits as reported by Adam Rubin for ESPN.com.