White Collar Defense and Compliance : New Jersey White Collar Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Criminal Defense, Insider Trading, RICO, Consumer Fraud : New Jersey, New York City

This is the seventeenth in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing some of the issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”). Installments 3 through 8, Installment 10 and Installments 14 through 16 of this series focused on the specific concerns of charities that were victims of Madoff and similar schemes. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors to have their positions evaluated.

On October 21, 2009, an article in The New York Times by Ken Belson and Richard Sandomir disclosed that a Madoff bankruptcy proceeding report had contradicted earlier information about large losses with Madoff purportedly suffered by the New York Mets and their owners, the Wilpon family. The article states that the report shows that

Mets LP, one of the team’s financial arms, withdrew $570.5 million from two accounts it held with Madoff’s company, $47.8 million more than it put in. The accounts were part of a list of more than 30 in which more money was withdrawn than was deposited with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. As a result, Mets LP and the others were deemed “net winners” ineligible for compensation and potentially liable to being sued by Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed liquidator who is trying to recover money lost in Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme. A spokesman for Picard declined to comment.

Thus the Mets and the Wilpon family may become the subject of “clawback” by Mr. Picard and end up losers, especially if they have paid now-unrecoverable federal and state income taxes on the illusory Madoff “gains.” This situation can be contrasted to the position stated by Picard with respect to seeking recovery from charities. As reported in Installment 16 of this blog series http://whitecollarcrime.foxrothschild.com/, Diana B. Henriques wrote on May 28, 2009 in The New York Times that “[t]here is the widespread fear among some — unfounded, Mr. [Irving] Picard [the trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy proceeding] says — that he will sue struggling charities or people of limited means for money they withdrew in the past but no longer have.”

Installment 14 of this blog series discussed reports of large profits by Hadassah from its investments with Madoff. Will Picard choose to pursue the Mets and the Wilpon family while passing on Hadassah? All charities, especially those providing social services like Hadassah, are “struggling” with materially reduced contributions because of the economy, increased demands by individuals who are unemployed and suffering financially, losses in endowment funds from the substantial market declines and increased regulatory activity.

While the position earlier stated by Picard as to charities may be humanitarian and emotionally appealing, there is little basis in the law for the disparity in treatment between charities and for-profit entities. This inequality of approach will more likely than not lead to protracted litigation and uncertainty in the Madoff matter.

[To be continued in Installment 18]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is the fourth in a series of Installments on this blog that will discuss some of the threshold issues that face the manifold stakeholders who have been materially affected by the Bernard L. Madoff scandal, allegedly the longest, most widespread and financially devastating Ponzi scheme on record. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors promptly to have their positions evaluated.

We will continue the discussion of charitable entities and foundations that invested with Madoff. This series has already discussed in Installment 3 some generally accepted accounting principles specific to 501(c)(3) Entities that aided Madoff in extending the life and increasing greatly the scope of his operation. Hand in hand with the GAAP principles for 501(c)(3) Entities that assisted Madoff are federal income tax rules that are applicable to 501(c)(3) Entities.

Direct Entity Investors (“DEI”) that are charitable entities and foundations (“501(c)(3) Entities”)

Certain Income Tax Rules Applicable to 501(c)(3) Entities that Inured to the Benefit of Madoff

The most important tax principle for 501(c)(3) Entities that benefited Madoff is that their investment income is exempt from federal and state income taxes. Charities can therefore stay fully invested and roll over investment income into further investments. This was a powerful tool for Madoff. Because of the apparent safety, consistency and stability of his relatively high “returns,” Boards and Investment Committees of 501(c)(3) Entities would be disinclined to redeem either principal or “returns” in accounts with Madoff because they did not even have to pay taxes on their reported returns from Madoff. Such 501(c)(3) Entities would seek to use funds from other areas of their endowment funds to remain as fully invested as practicable with Madoff.

Madoff preyed upon the various business and tax advantages that many 501(c)(3) Entities saw in an investment with him. As a result Madoff was able to count on the fact that charities would be resistant to request redemptions of principal and would even reinvest their reported “returns” for a long period of time. It was only when the rest of the financial markets collapsed that 501(c)(3) Entities began to demand large distributions that Madoff could not meet. Then the 501(c)(3) Entities became subject to the glare of adverse publicity and embarrassing questions as to how and why the staggering losses that they suffered had taken place.

Summary of the benefits for Madoff’s operations of the credibility and stability that he projected to 501(c)(3) Entities
The next discussion in this series will focus on the proactive review and responses that 501(c)(3) Entities should be considering in governance and investment policies to the shocking losses and other harmful aftermath of investing with Madoff. Such a proactive review makes good sense for all 501(c)(3) Entities, irrespective of whether or not they were investors with Madoff. The increased regulatory scrutiny under which charities will be operating in the future makes “best practices” a necessity.

As a prelude to that discussion, it should again be observed that 501(c)(3) Entities have been on the lookout for many years for investment vehicles in which to place their endowment funds that appear to have a high degree of safety and stability and provide a consistent and relatively high rate of return. An investment with Madoff appeared to be ideal to many 501(c)(3) Entities on all of these levels, especially with his track record of 12% average annual returns over decades, combined with the added credibility flowing from the fact that many other highly respected 501(c)(3) Entities were also long time investors. Moreover, for 50 years Madoff had been a leader and innovator in the investment industry and had been Chairman of the NASDAQ Stock Market. This prominence enhanced his stature and trustworthiness as an investment advisor. Therefore, Boards and Investment Committees of many 501(c)(3) Entities felt comfortable with entrusting millions of their endowment dollars with Madoff for extended periods.

Such comfort was heightened by the fact that Madoff appeared to be one with them, that is, he was the epitome of the famous “Three W’s” that are the most desirable attributes for Board members of 501(c)(3) Entities: Wealth, Wisdom and Work. Madoff evidenced personal wealth and largesse in personally contributing large sums to numerous charities; he appeared to unselfishly share his wisdom, experience and business acumen with those 501(c)(3) Entities in which he was interested; and finally he was deeply involved in rising to leadership roles in charities because of his work effort and apparent wealth and wisdom. All of these factors, combined with the apparent business and tax benefits of an investment with Madoff for 501(c)(3) Entities, enhanced the scope and longevity of his enterprise.

The next Installment will continue the discussion of the aftermath of the Madoff scandal for 501(c)(3) Entities with an emphasis on the review and analysis on governance and investment policies that charitable organizations should be conducting to repair and/or enhance their standing among their peers and competitors for contributions.

[To be continued in Installment 5]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is the second in a series of installments on this blog that will discuss some of the threshold issues that face the manifold stakeholders who have been materially affected by the Bernard L. Madoff scandal, allegedly the longest, most widespread and financially devastating Ponzi scheme on record. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors promptly to have their positions evaluated.

We will begin by discussing further Direct Individual Investors (“DII”) and then move on to Direct Entity Investors (“DEI”).

Direct Individual Investors (“DII”) (continued)

Those who are DIIs and were “fortunate” enough to have secured distributions through redemptions from Madoff in the past may believe that they were lucky or brilliant to have withdrawn money before his arrest. However, they may confront efforts by trustees or regulators to “claw back” such distributions to the extent they were materially disproportionate to the withdrawals of the average investor. The likely theory for a “claw back” would be that all of the investors were engaged in a unitary integrated failed enterprise and that no single investor should have fared better proportionately than the average investor, whether wittingly or unwittingly. To a certain degree, the energy that will be undertaken to pursue a DII will depend on (i) the absolute amount in dollars of the disproportionate distribution to such DII, (ii) how long ago the redemption(s) took place and/or (iii) the relative level of disproportion. The “claw back” process may become complex and could even be affected by state law, which may differ from state to state. Competent professional advice for DIIs is a necessity in this area.

There may be some DIIs that have been so adversely affected by the aftermath of the Madoff scandal that they could be considering bankruptcy, selling their residences to raise funds or other precipitous measures. For example, housing prices are deeply depressed in many areas, which can greatly limit the recovery on a sale, especially if there is a mortgage present. Moreover, in some states, there are strong homestead laws that exempt houses from being included in bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures. Again, competent professional advice for DIIs is a necessity in this area.

Direct Entity Investors (“DEI”)

There are many types of potential DEIs that may have invested with Madoff. These include trusts, hedge funds or other investment managers and vehicles, charitable organizations, etc. This blog will endeavor to cover some of the DEIs that have been most prominent in recent publications.

Hedge funds, investment managers and other investment vehicles (“Funds”) have surfaced as major victims of investing with Madoff. While such Funds may be victims, the managers of these Funds may have their own problems in that they charge their own investors a management fee, generally tied to the level of assets under management (1% to 2%) and/or a performance fee that may be as much as 20% of returns or returns above a specified threshold (“Fees”). In cases where such Funds simply turned over substantial assets to Madoff for investment by him and such Funds took their standard Fees on such assets, investors in the Funds may have a legitimate objection that such Fees should be disgorged in light of the fact that the managers of such Funds did not perform investment management services that warranted the Fees. Additionally, depending on the publications by the Funds of their purpose, investment style and other disclosures, there may be a potential cause of action against the managers of such Funds for investing outside of the stated investments for the Funds or even negligence or breach of fiduciary duty in the selection of an investment with Madoff. The issues are complex for both the Funds and their managers and individuals who invested in the Funds and became indirect victims of Madoff.

[To be continued in Installment 3]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks