Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 4 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Discursive Comments On The Oral Argument In The Court of Appeals In The Madoff Case On March 3, 2011. Part 2

By       (Page 1 of 4 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   No comments
Author 2556
Message Lawrence Velvel

March   30, 2011

 

Discursive Comments On The Oral Argument In The Court of Appeals

  In The Madoff Case On March 3, 2011.

 

PART 2

 

 

            As readers know, I had originally intended to do this essay in two parts.   But it is proving so long and difficult to do that I shall divide it into more parts, and shall post them as I do them.   This Part 2 will deal with the oral argument of the first opponent to argue, the General Counsel of SIPC, Josephine Wang.  

 

Beginning by saying Madoff's statements are fictitious, Wang was immediately interrupted by Judge Raggi's comment that if victims had sued Madoff, he would have had to pay them what the statements showed they were owed.   (Tr. 36.)   Wang admitted this would have been true if Madoff had remained in business.   The judge then asked why it should be different in regard to what SIPC has to pay.   Wang said it is because SIPC is bound by a federal statute and that statute does not authorize a trustee to benefit certain customers at the expense of other customers; because the prices on the statements were back-dated; and because the profits or so-called profits, were fictitious.   (Tr. 37.)  

 

Judge Leval then asked "How is it at the expense of other customers when you're talking about . . . the funds coming from SIPC that measure for each customer independently how much that customer is entitled to?"   (Id.)   Wang's answer was that we're not talking just about the money coming from the SIPC fund, but about "customers who are all eligible to share pro rata in a fund of customer property."   (Id.)   Some withdrew their principal plus fake profits, which were other people's money, and others did not withdraw their principal, which was used to pay other investors.

 

            Judge Raggi then wanted to know "where is this customer property coming from."   (Tr. 38.)   Wang said it's "all [the] property that was held . . . for customers," and includes what the Trustee initially found in the possession of Madoff and what he recovers by actions against third parties.   (Tr. 38.)   It is, said Wang, "shared pro rata among customers."   (Id.)   This means, she said in a confused way, that people who did not yet recover their principal will be sharing with people who already recovered their principal and will be receiving fake profits, which is unfair.   (Tr. 38-39.)

 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Lawrence Velvel Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Lawrence R. Velvel is a cofounder and the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, and is the founder of the American College of History and Legal Studies.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Preliminary Memorandum of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference on Federal Prosecutions of War Criminals

Investing With Bernie Madoff: How It Happened, What Happened, What Might Be Done (Part I)

Madoff And The Mafia: A Mere Speculation Or Almost A Sure Thing?

Irving Picard's Three Percent Commission In The Madoff Case.

Alan Dershowitz on Whether to Prosecute Executive Branch Criminals

It Appears That The Madoff Scam Was Not, Repeat Not, A Ponzi Scheme.

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: