Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (3 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
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       Message Lawrence Velvel       (Page 1 of 4 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Author 2556
- Advertisement -

March   30, 2011


Discursive Comments On The Oral Argument In The Court of Appeals

  In The Madoff Case On March 3, 2011.

- Advertisement -




- Advertisement -


            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.

- Advertisement -


            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


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It


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.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   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
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

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)

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

Alan Dershowitz on Whether to Prosecute Executive Branch Criminals

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

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