Picard Response Picower's MtoD
-
Upload
thebusinessinsider -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of Picard Response Picower's MtoD
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
1/82
Baker & H ( stetler LLP45 R $ ckefeller Plaza
New Y $ rk, NY 10111Teleph $ ne: (212) 589-4200Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
David J. SheehanEmail: [email protected] $ mTh$ mas LucchesiEmail: [email protected] $ m
Lauren Resnick Email: [email protected] $ mTracy C $ leEmail: tc$ [email protected] $ mMarc HirschfieldEmail: [email protected] $ m
Att # rneys f # r Irving H. Picard, Esq.,Trustee f # r the SIPA Liquidati # n # f
Bernard L. Mad # ff Investment Securities LLC
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re:
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENTSECURITIES LLC,
Debt $ r.
SIPA LIQUIDATION
N$ . 08-01789 (BRL)
IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee f $ r the Liquidati $ n$ f Bernard L. Mad $ ff Investment Securities LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFRY M. PICOWER, individually andas trustee f $ r the Pic $ wer F $ undati $ n, et al.
Defendants.
Adv. Pr $ . N$ . 09-1197 (BRL)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS PARTIAL MOTIONTO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. BANKR. P. 7012(b) AND 7009
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
2/82
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-i-
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 2
I. Pic $ wer benefited tremend $ usly fr $ m Mad $ ffs fraud and is n $ t a victim........... 2II. Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn that he was benefiting fr $ m a fraud........... 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 15
I. THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PICOWER ARE PLED WITH SPECIFICITY....... 15
II. THE TRUSTEE HAS ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ........ 18
A. Pic $ wer has received ample n $ tice pleading $ f the c $ nstructive fraudclaims............................................................................................................... 19
B. The preference claim is pled in the alternative. ................................................. 21C. Fictiti $ us pr $ fit d $ es n $ t c$ nstitute fair c $ nsiderati $ n....................................... 22
D. The Net Equity Dispute is irrelevant t $ the Trustees claims and cann $ t bedetermined in a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss..................................................................... 25
III. THE TRUSTEE HAS ALLEGED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THECORPORATE VEIL AND HOLD PICOWER LIABLE FOR THE TRANSFERSTO ALL DEFENDANTS, AND DEFENDANTS FAIL TO CHALLENGE THESUFFICIENCY OF THE TRUSTEES AGENCY ALLEGATIONS ........................... 27
A. The Trustee has pled facts sufficient t $ pierce the c $ rp$ rate veil $ f each
Defendant and imp $ se alter eg $ liability up $ n Pic $ wer and $ ther Defendants. ...................................................................................................... 28
1. The determinati $ n $ f whether t $ ign$ re the c $ rp$ rate f $ rmsrequires a fact specific inquiry int $ the t$ tality $ f thecircumstances. ...................................................................................... 30
2. The C $ mplaint amply pleads a basis f $ r piercing the c $ rp$ rate veil....... 32
B. Defendants fail t $ challenge the Trustees agency allegati $ ns. .......................... 34
IV. ALL DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING THE FOUR NOT LISTED ON E b HIBIT BTO THE COMPLAINT, RECEIVED AVOIDABLE TRANSFERS ............................ 36
V. THE TRUSTEES TURNOVER CLAIM IS PROPERLY STATED............................ 36VI. THE RELEVANT DATE FOR THE SI b YEAR CONVEYANCES IS
CORRECTLY ALLEGED........................................................................................... 39
A. State law limitati $ ns peri $ ds are relevant $ nly until the bankruptcy case isfiled.................................................................................................................. 39
1. Pic $ wers argument c $ ntravenes 25 years $ f bankruptcy case law......... 41
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
3/82
TABLE OF CONTENTS(c$ ntinued)
Page
-ii-
2. There is n $ evidence $ f c$ ntrary C $ ngressi $ nal intent........................... 45
B. The state statute $ f limitati $ ns has n $ t run. ....................................................... 46
1. The Bankruptcy case filing stays the running $ f the statute $ f limitati $ ns under New Y $ rk law............................................................ 47
2. Secti $ n 108(c) $ f the Bankruptcy C $ de als $ stays the running $ f the New Y $ rk statute $ f limitati $ ns....................................................... 48
3. The state statute $ f limitati $ ns is als $ equitably t $ lled as t $ b$ threal and hyp $ thetical credit $ rs f $ r claims based $ n actual fraud. ........... 50
VII. THE TRUSTEE HAS SUFFICIENTLY PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION BASEDON THE DISCOVERY RULE .................................................................................... 51
A. There is n $ requirement at this stage $ f the acti $ n t$ specifically identify
the credit $ r(s) wh $ se claims are being asserted................................................. 52B. While the Trustee has adequately alleged the existence $ f credit $ rs wh $
c$ uld n $ t reas $ nably have disc $ vered the fraud, evaluati $ n $ f this issue is premature. ........................................................................................................ 55
1. The evaluati $ n $ f which invest $ rs c$ uld $ r c$ uld n$ t havedisc $ vered the fraud cann $ t be made $ n this m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss. ............ 56
2. Pic $ wer is a s $ phisticated invest $ r wh $ had access t $ inf $ rmati$ n including fraud in his $ wn acc $ unts that $ ther invest $ rs lacked. ...... 57
VIII. THE TRUSTEE HAS PROPERLY ALLEGED A CLAIM TO AVOIDSUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS..................................................................................... 59
Ib . THE TRUSTEE HAS PROPERLY ALLEGED DISALLOWANCE OFDEFENDANTS SIPA CLAIMS ................................................................................. 62
A. The plain language $ f Secti $ n 502(d) defeats Defendants argument. ............... 63
B. The Net Equity dispute is n $ t pr $ perly bef $ re the C $ urt in the c $ ntext $ f am$ ti$ n t$ dismiss. ............................................................................................ 64
b . DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN REQUESTED REMEDIESIN THIS CASE IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER AND WITHOUT MERIT......... .. 65
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
4/82
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
-iii-
Cases
546-552 West 146th Street LLC v. Arfa , 863 N.Y.S.2d 412 (1st Dept 2008)............................. 34 Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. v. M # mene , 202 F. Supp. 2d 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ............. 29, 30
Am. Express Travel Related Servs. C # ., Inc. v. N. Atl. Res # urces, Inc., 691 N.Y.S.2d 403 (1stDept 1999) .......................................................................................................................... 35
Am. Tissue, Inc. v. D # nalds # n, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. C # rp ., 351 F. Supp. 2d 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)............................................................................................................................................. 22
Andrew Velez C # nstr., Inc. v. C # ns# lidated Edis # n C # . # f New Y # rk (In re Andrew Velez C # nstr., Inc.) , 373 B.R. 262 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007).................................................................... 37, 66
Ap# ll # Fuel Oil v. United States , 195 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1999) .................................................... 34
Ashcr # ft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)................................................................................... 15
Baldi v. Samuel S # n & C # . (In re McC ## k Metals, LLC) N$ . 05 C 2990, 2007 WL 4287507(N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2007), affd , 548 F.3d 579 (7 th Cir. 2008)................................................... 43
Ban # v. Uni # n Carbide C # rp ., 273 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2001)...................................................... 35
Barnhill v. J # hns # n, 503 U.S. 393 (1992) ................................................................................. 22
Barr v. Charterh # use Gr # up Intl, Inc. (In re Everfresh Beverages, Inc.) , 238 B.R. 558 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1999)..................................................................................................................... 44
Bash v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham) , Adv. N $ . 07-01146, 2008 WL 2746023 (Bankr. N.D.Ohi$ July 11, 2008) .............................................................................................................. 44
Bay State Milling C # . v. Martin (In re Martin) , 142 B.R. 260 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992)......... 41, 46
Bay # u Accredited Fund, LLC v. Redw ## d Gr # wth Partners, L.P. (In re Bay # u Gr # up, LLC ), 396B.R. 810 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................................................... 17
Bay # u Superfund, LLC v. WAM L # ng/Sh # rt Fund II, LLP (In re Bay # u Gr # up, LLC), 362 B.R.624 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) ......................................................................................20, 22, 23
Bear, Stearns Sec. C # rp. v. Gredd (In re Manhattan Inv. Fund Ltd.) , 397 B.R. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)............................................................................................................................................. 16
Belf # rd v. Martin-Trig # na ( In re Martin-Trig # na ), 763 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1985)....................... 49
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
5/82
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
6/82
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(c$ ntinued)
Page
-v-
Dzik # wski v. Friedlander (In re Friedlander Capital Mgmt.) , Adv. N $ . 05-03088-PGH, 2009WL 1231085 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2009)...................................................................... 44
Eisenberg v. Feiner (In re Ahead By A Length, Inc. ), 100 B.R. 157 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)..... 41
Erbe v. Linc # ln R # chester Trust C # ., 144 N.E.2d 78 (N.Y. 1957) ............................................. 56
Ericks # n v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89 (2007) .............................................................................. 19, 59
ESI, Inc. v. C # astal P # wer Pr # d. C # ., 995 F.Supp. 419 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).................................. 66
Espin # sa v. Rand , 806 N.Y.S.2d 186 (1st Dept 2005).............................................................. 35
FDIC v. Hirsch (In re C # l # nial Realty C # .), 980 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1992) ......................38, 47, 48
Feldman v. First Natl City Bank , 511 F.2d 460 (2d Cir. 1975)................................................. 44
Fink v. Graven Aucti # n C # . (In re Graven) , 64 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 1995)................................... 43
First Uni # n Natl. Bank v. Gibb # ns (In re Princet # n-New Y # rk Inv. Inc .), 219 B.R. 55 (D.N.J.1998).................................................................................................................................... 41
Fitzgibb # ns v. Th # mas # n (In re Th # mas # n), 202 B.R. 768 (Bankr. D. C $ l$ . 1996)................... 50
Fletcher v. Atex, Inc. , 68 F.3d 1451(2d Cir. 1995) .............................................................. 28, 29
Geyer v. Ingers#
ll Publicati#
ns C #
., 621 A.2d 784 (Del. Ch. 1992) .................................... 29, 31G-I H # ldings, Inc. v. Th # se Parties Listed # n Exhibit A (In re G-I H # ldings, Inc.) , 313 B.R. 612
(Bankr. D.N.J. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 42, 48
Gl # bal Cr # ssing Estate Rep. v. Winnick , N$ . 04 Civ. 2558, 2006 WL 2212776 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3,2006).............................................................................................................................. 44, 54
Gl # sser v. S. & T. Bank (In re Ambulat # ry Medical & Surgical Health Care) , 187 B.R. 888(Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1995) ........................................................................................................ 42
G# ldman v. Belden , 754 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir. 1985) .................................................................... 15
Graham C # unty S # il & Water C # nservati # n Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wils # n, 545 U.S. 409 (2005).. 40
Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & C # ., 58 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)................. 58
Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Sec. C # rp. (In re Manhattan Inv. Fund Ltd) , 359 B.R. 510 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2007), affd in part and revd in part sub n # m. Bear, Stearns Sec. C # rp. v. Gredd (Inre Manhattan Inv. Fund Ltd. ), 397 B.R. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)................................................... 16
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
7/82
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(c$ ntinued)
Page
-vi-
Grumman Allied Indus., Inc. v. R # hr Indus., Inc. , 748 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1984))........................ 58
Halpert v. Engine Air Serv., Inc. ,116 F. Supp. 13 (E.D.N.Y. 1953)........................................... 44
Hassett v. Zimmerman (In re OPM Leasing Servs., Inc .), 32 B.R. 199 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983)16,43, 51
Higazy v. Templet # n, 505 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2007).................................................................... 26
Hirsch v. Gersten (In re Centennial Textiles, Inc.) , 220 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998).. 43, 66
H # ffenberg v. H # ffman & P # ll # k , 288 F.Supp.2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)..................................... 51
Hunter v. Hansen (In re Hansen) , 114 B.R. 927 (Bankr. N.D. Ohi $ 1990)................................ 45
Ideal Steel Supply C # rp. v. Fang , 767 N.Y.S.2d 644 (2d Dept 2003)....................................... 35
In re Asia Gl # bal Cr # ssing, Ltd. , 333 B.R. 199 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)................................... 64
In re K # reag, C # ntr # le et Revisi # n S.A., 961 F.2d 341 (2d Cir. 1992) ....................................... 66
In re Mid Atlantic Fund, Inc. , 60 B.R. 604 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986).......................................... 63
In re RCM Gl # bal L # ng Term Capital Appreciati # n Fund, Ltd. , 200 B.R. 514 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.1996).............................................................................................................................. 53, 54
In re Taubman , 160 B.R. 964 (Bankr. S.D. Ohi$
1993)............................................20, 22, 23, 24 In re Vitre # us Steel Pr # ds. C # ., 911 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990) ................................................. 50
Irwin & Leight # n, Inc. v. W.M. Anders # n C # ., 532 A.2d 983 (Del. Ch. 1987) ........................... 29
Jalbert v. Zurich Am. Ins. C # . (In re Payt # n C # nstr. C # rp.), 399 B.R. 352 (Bankr. D. Mass.2009).................................................................................................................................... 21
Jenkins v. New Y # rk City Transit Auth # rity , --- F. Supp. 2d ---, N $ . 08 Civ. 6814, 2009 WL1940103 (July 1, 2009)......................................................................................................... 15
Kaliner v. L # ad Rite Trailers, Inc. (In re Sverica Acquisiti # n C # rp.), 179 B.R. 457 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1995) ........................................................................................................................ 42, 48
L.A. Clarke & S # n, Inc. v. D # nald (In re L.A. Clarke & S # n, Inc.) , 59 B.R. 856 (Bankr. D.D.C.1986).................................................................................................................................... 42
Lawler v. RepublicBank Dallas (In re Lawler) , 53 B.R. 166 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1985) .............. 44
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
8/82
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(c$ ntinued)
Page
-vii-
Lefk # witz v. Appelbaum , 685 N.Y.S.2d 460 (2d Dept 1999) .................................................... 51
Levit v. Spatz (In re Spatz) , 222 B.R. 157 (N.D. Ill. 1998)......................................................... 41
Lippe v. Bairnc # C # rp. , 225 B.R. 846 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ............................................................ 51
L# presti v. Terwilliger , 126 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997)................................................................... 35
Mab # n, Nugent & C # . v. Texas Am. Energy C # rp. , 1998 WL 5492 (Del. Ch. 1988).................. 30
Mab # n, Nugent & C # . v. Texas Am. Energy C # rp. , CIV.A. N $ . 8578, 1990 WL 44267 (Del. Ch.Apr. 12, 1990) ...................................................................................................................... 31
MacLe # d v. Kapp , 81 F. Supp. 512 (S.D.N.Y. 1948) ................................................................ 44
Mah # ney, Tr # cki & Ass # cs., Inc. v. Kunzman (In re Mah # ney, Tr # cki & Ass # cs., Inc.) , 111 B.R.914 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1990).................................................................................................. 40
Mancus # v. C # ntl Bank Natl Assn Chicag # (In re T # pc # r, Inc.) , 132 B.R. 119 (Bankr. N.D.Tex. 1991) .................................................................................................................41, 45, 46
Marine Midland Bank v. J # hn E. Russ # Pr # duce C # ., 405 N.E.2d 205 (N.Y. 1980).................. 35
Mendels # hn v. Jac # b# witz (In re Jac # bs) , 394 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008) ... 19, 21, 37, 38,39
Mercury Capital C #
rp. v. Shepherds Beach, Inc. , 723 N.Y.S.2d 48 (2d Dept 2001)................. 47Mills v. P # lar M # lecular C # rp ., 12 F.3d 1170 (2d Cir. 1993).................................................... 35
Mi-L # r C # rp. v. G # ttsegen (In re Mi-L # r C # rp.) 233 B.R. 608 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1999) ............ 41
M # bil Oil C # rp. v. Linear Films, Inc. , 718 F. Supp. 260 (D. Del. 1989) .............................. 29, 30
M # st v. M # nti , 456 N.Y.S.2d 427 (2d Dept 1982).................................................................... 59
Netjets Aviati # n, Inc. v. LHC C # mmunicati # ns, LLC , 537 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2008) .30, 31, 32, 33,34
OC # nnell v. Shall # (In re Die Fleidermaus LLC), 323 B.R. 101 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) ........ 42
Official C # mm. # f Unsecured Credit # rs v. Reliance Capital Gr # up, Inc. (In re Buckhead America C # rp.) , 178 B.R. 956 (D. Del. 1994)....................................................................... 31
Old Orchard Bank & Trust C # . v. J # sefik (In re J # sefik) , 72 B.R. 393 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987).. 43
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
9/82
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(c$ ntinued)
Page
-viii-
Orbach v. Pappa, 482 F. Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)................................................................ 22
Orr v. Bernstein (In re Bernstein) , 259 B.R. 555 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2001) ............................... 42, 48
Pauley Petr # leum, Inc. v. C # ntinental Oil C # ., 231 A.2d 450 (Del. Ch. 1967), affd , 239 A.2d629 (Del. 1968) .................................................................................................................... 30
Phillips v. Levie , 593 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1979)........................................................................... 51
P # l # netsky v. Better H # mes Dep # t, Inc ., 760 N.E.2d 1274 (N.Y. 2001) .................................... 35
Publicker Indus. v. R # man Ceramics C # rp., 603 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1979) ............................... 30
Resp # nsible Pers # n # f Musicland H # lding C # rp. v. Best Buy C # . (In re Musicland H # lding C # rp.), 398 B.R. 761 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)............................................................52, 53, 54
R# berts # n-Cec # C # rp. v. C # rnelius , N$ . 3:03cv475, 2007 WL 1020326 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 30,2007).................................................................................................................................... 29
R# sania v. Haligas (In re Dry Wall Supply, Inc.) , 111 B.R. 933 (D. C $ l$ . 1990) ...........40, 41, 46
Schmidt v. McKay , 555 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1977) ..............................................................51, 56, 57
Sch # les v. Lehmann , 56 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1995)............................................... 20, 22, 23, 24, 27
Sears Petr # leum & Trans. C # . v. Burgess C # nstr. Servs., Inc. , 417 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D. Mass.
2006).................................................................................................................................... 41Sec. Invest # r Pr # tect. C # rp. v. Stratt # n Oakm # nt, Inc. , 234 B.R. 293 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999).. 19
Seligs # n v. N.Y. Pr # duce Exch. , 378 F. Supp. 1076 (D.C.N.Y. 1974)........................................ 44
Sender v. Buchannan (In re Hedged-Investments Ass # cs.) , 84 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 1996) . 20, 22,23, 24
Shlaifer Nance & C # . v. Estate # f Andy Warh # l , 119 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1997)............................. 58
Silverman v. K.E.R.U. Realty, C # rp. (In re All # u Distribs.), 379 B.R. 5 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2007)
............................................................................................................................................. 59
Sim# nds v. Sim # nds , 380 N.E.2d 189 (N.Y. 1978) .................................................................... 66
Smith v. Am. F # unders Fin., C # rp. , 365 B.R. 647 (S.D. Tex. 2007) .......................................... 41
S # lutia Inc. v. FMC C # rp ., 456 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ............................................. 58
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
10/82
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(c$ ntinued)
Page
-ix-
Steege v. Ly # ns (In re Ly # ns) , 130 B.R. 272 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991) ................................... 44, 48
T.C.I. Ltd. v. Sears Bank & Trust C # . (In re T.C.I. Ltd.) , 21 B.R. 876 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1982)... 44
Tab Pship v. Grantland Fin. C # rp ., 866 F. Supp. 807 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ............................. 56, 58
Tabas v. Gigi Advertising Partnership (In re Kaufman & R # berts, Inc.) , 188 B.R. 309 (Bankr.S.D. Fl. 1995)....................................................................................................................... 42
Tekinsight.c # m, Inc. v. Stylesite Mktg., Inc . ( In re Stylesite Mktg., Inc .), 253 B.R. 503 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2000)..................................................................................................................... 66
Tese-Milner v. TPAC, LLC (In re Ticketplanet.c # m), 313 B.R. 46 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004)....... 29
Trepuk v. Frank , 376 N.E.2d 924 (N.Y. 1978) revd # n # ther gr # unds , 437 N.E.2d 278 (N.Y.1982).................................................................................................................................... 56
Trevin # v. Mersc # rp, Inc ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 521 (D. Del. 2008) ................................................. 31
Tsai v. Buildings By Jamie, Inc. (In re Buildings by Jamie, Inc.) , 230 B.R. 36 (Bankr. D.N.J.1998).................................................................................................................................... 41
Uni # n Carbide C # rp. v. M # ntell N.V. , 944 F. Supp. 1119 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)............................... 31
United States v. Bestf ## ds, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) ......................................................................... 28
United States v. G#
lden Acres, Inc. , 702 F. Supp. 1097 (D. Del. 1988), affd , 879 F.2d 857 (3dCir. 1989) ............................................................................................................................. 31
Visc # nsi v. Lehman , N$ . 06-3304, 2007 WL 2258827 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2007) .................... 23, 24
Wallace v. W ## d , 752 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 1999)..................................................................... 29
Wassau Business Ins. C # . v. Turner C # nst. C # ., 141 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ............. 28
William Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Devel # pers S # uth, Inc. , 933 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1991)............................................................................................................. 28, 30, 32, 33, 34
Wilshire Westw ## d Ass# cs. v. Atlantic Richfield C # rp. , 881 F.2d 801(9th Cir. 1989)................ 46
W ## ds & Ericks # n LLP v. Le # nard (In re Avi, Inc.) , 389 B.R. 721(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008) ......... 39
Y # ung v. Param # unt C # mmcns, Inc. (In re Wingspread C # rp.) , 178 B.R. 938 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.1995).................................................................................................................................... 53
Zahn v. Yucaipa Capital Fund , 218 B.R. 656 (D.R.I. 1998) ................................................ 52, 56
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
11/82
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
12/82
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(c$ ntinued)
Page
-xi-
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 274 (McKinney 2009)..................................................................... 51
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 275 (McKinney 2009)..................................................................... 51
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 276 (McKinney 2009)..................................................................... 51
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 278 (McKinney 2009)..................................................................... 51
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 279 (McKinney 2009)..................................................................... 51
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (2009)...................................................................................................... 22, 59
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 (2009).................................................................................................15, 19, 61Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (2009)................................................................................................. 62
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (2009)...................................................................................................... 65
Treatises
4 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 544.03[2] (L.King 15 th ed. 1989)...................................................... 44
5 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 544.09 (2009) .................................................................................. 44
5 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 546.02 (2009) ............................................................................ 42, 46
5 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 546.LH (2009)................................................................................. 46
5 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 548.05 (2009) .................................................................................. 26
5 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 550.07 (2009) .................................................................................. 39
William Meade Fletcher, Fletcher Cycl $ pedia $ f the Law $ f C$ rp$ rati $ ns 41.32 (2009)........ 29
Stephen B. Presser, Piercing the C # rp # rate Veil 2.8 (2009)................................................... 28
Wright and Miller, 5 Fed. Prac. & Pr $ c. Civ.3d 1215 (2009).................................................. 60
Wright and Miller, 5 Fed. Prac. & Pr $ c. Civ.3d 1255 (2009)................................................. 65
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
13/82
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Jeffry Pic $ wer t $$ k fr $ m Bernard L. Mad $ ff Investment Securities (BLMIS) m $ re than
$7 billi $ n $ f $ ther invest $ rs m $ ney under circumstances that, at a minimum, sh $ uld have put
him $ n n$ tice $ f fraud. In resp $ nse t $ the Trustees av $ idance acti $ n, Pic $ wer (t $ gether with the$ ther Defendants, all $ f which are c $ ntr $ lled by him) has m $ ved t$ dismiss many $ f the causes
$ f acti$ n asserted by the Trustee. 1 Pic$ wers m $ ti$ n, h$ wever, is, by its $ wn admissi $ n, little
m$ re than a public relati $ ns exercise designed t $ cast Pic $ wer as an inn $ cent victim $ f Mad $ ffs
scheme. 2
Alth $ ugh his m $ ti$ n presents a myriad $ f supp $ sed backgr $ und facts alm $ st all $ f
which are irrelevant t $ the questi $ n $ f whether the Trustee has stated a claim and s $ me $ f which
are directly c $ ntradict $ ry t$ what is asserted in the Trustees C $ mplaint Pic $ wer fails t $
ackn$ wledge the billi $ ns $ f d$ llars $ f $ ther invest $ rs m $ ney that he received fr $ m BLMIS.
Despite Pic $ wers c $ ntenti $ n that the C $ mplaint fails t $ plead fraud pr $ perly, Pic $ wer als $ fails
even t $ ackn$ wledge let al $ ne resp $ nd t$ the stark evidence $ f fraud that $ ccurred in his
BLMIS acc$
unts and that is described thr $
ugh$
ut the Trustees C$
mplaint. The few arguments
1 The Trustee seeks rec $ very $ f av$ idable transfers fr $ m each Defendant. Based $ n the evidence available t $ theTrustee, it is apparent that Pic $ wer c $ ntr $ lled all $ f the BLMIS acc $ unts at issue. In additi $ n t$ Pic$ wers c $ ntr $ l$ f the acc $ unts described herein, and as alleged in the C $ mplaint, Pic $ wer and/ $ r Decisi $ ns Inc. (Decisi $ ns)(described in Pic $ wers m $ ti$ n as the principal entity thr $ ugh which Mr. Pic $ wer transacts his investment
business) is a general partner $ r direct $ r $ f Capital Gr $ wth C $ mpany, JA Primary Limited Partnership, JA SpecialLimited Partnership, JAB Partnership, JEMW Partnership, JF Partnership, JFM Investment C $ mpany, JLNPartnership, JMP Limited Partnership, Jeffry M. Pic $ wer Special C $ ., Fav $ rite Funds, Jeffry M. Pic $ wer P.C.(c$ llectively, and t $ gether with Decisi $ ns, the Pic $ wer C $ rp$ rate Entities) and a Trustee $ f the Pic $ wer F$ undati $ n. (C $ mpl. 3749, 53.) Acc $ rding t $ publicly available filings with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeC$ mmissi $ n, Pic $ wer is the s $ le st$ ckh$ lder, s $ le direct $ r, and Chairman $ f the B $ ard $ f Decisi $ ns. See, e.g .,
Alaris Medical System Inc., Statement $ f Changes in Beneficial Ownership (F $ rm 4) (June 25, 2004) (Jeffry M.Pic$ wer), available at http://sec.g $ v/Archives/edgar/data/817161/000090266404001043/xslF345 b 02/srz04-0471_ex.xml. Decisi $ ns and m $ st $ f the Pic $ wer C $ rp$ rate Entities maintained an address at 22 Saw Mill River R $ ad, Hawth $ rne, New Y $ rk, a st $ re fr $ nt $ ffice where little $ r n$ business was c $ nducted. (C $ mpl. 37 et seq. ) Thr $ ugh$ ut this resp $ nse, the Trustee may refer t $ Pic $ wer and the Defendants interchangeably.2 (See Def.s M $ t. t$ Dismiss at 4 n.2 [hereinafter MTD] (ackn $ wledging that the facts pr $ vided herein are n $ t$ ffered $ r relied up $ n as bases f $ r dismissal $ f the C $ mplaint. Rather, these backgr $ und facts are simply presentedt$ c$ rrect and pr $ vide c $ ntext t $ facts alleged in the C $ mplaint.).)
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
14/82
2
by Pic $ wer that d $ ackn$ wledge the factual allegati $ ns in the C $ mplaint are n $ t c$ gnizable
bases f $ r a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss.
Th$ ugh Pic $ wers alleged facts generally are, as Pic $ wer c $ ncedes, irrelevant t $ the
determinati $ n $ f the m $ ti$ n, it w $ uld be irresp $ nsible f $ r the Trustee t $ let the m $ st egregi $ us
misrepresentati $ ns stand unc $ rrected. Acc $ rdingly, s $ me $ f them are addressed in the f $ ll$ wing
secti$ n.
BACKGROUND
I. PICOWER BENEFITED TREMENDOUSLY FROM MADOFFS FRAUD AND ISNOT A VICTIM.
The theme $ f Pic$ wers m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss is that he, like $ ther BLMIS invest $ rs, is a
victim $ f Mad $ ffs fraud, suffering devastating and immeasurable l $ ss. N $ thing c $ uld be
further fr $ m the truth. Many invest $ rs were damaged by the BLMIS fraud, but Pic $ wer was n $ t
$ ne $ f them. Based up $ n the Trustees investigati $ n t$ date, Pic $ wer was instead the biggest
beneficiary $ f Mad $ ffs scheme, having withdrawn either directly $ r thr $ ugh the entities he
c$ ntr $ lled m $ re than $7.2 billi $ n $ f $ ther invest $ rs m $ ney. Of this am $ unt, m $ re than $2.4
billi $ n was received by Pic $ wer within the past six years al $ ne. The sums received by Pic $ wer
are staggering by any measure. Given that Pic $ wer withdrew m $ re $ f $ ther invest $ rs m $ ney
than any $ ther cust $ mer $ f BLMIS, Pic $ wers repeated references t $ himself as a victim ring
h$ ll$ w.
Pic$ wer als $ claims that he is a victim $ f $ verreaching by the Trustee. Pic $ wer
c$ ntends that this acti $ n is driven by the Trustees desire t $ fav$ r later BLMIS invest $ rs $ ver
earlier $ nes. (MTD at 2.) The Trustee, Pic $ wer claims, unfairly paints him as a villain in a
frenzied eff $ rt t$ deliver t $ the estate unprecedented sums fr $ m $ ne $ f Mad $ ffs wealthiest
invest $ rs. (MTD at 4.) Pic $ wer is mistaken. It is the Trustees $ bligati $ n t$ bring acti $ ns $ n
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
15/82
3
behalf $ f the estate t $ rec$ ver av $ idable transfers. Seeking the rec $ very $ f fictiti $ us pr $ fits
received by invest $ rs in a P $ nzi scheme is wh $ lly appr $ priate. Indeed, the law is well-settled
that the Trustee can rec $ ver such payments within the relevant peri $ ds regardless $ f the
invest $ rs g $$ d faith $ r lack $ f kn$ wledge $ f the scheme. Even if Pic $ wer were, as he claims,
taken in by Mad $ ff, and even putting aside the evidence $ f patent fraud disc $ vered by the
Trustee and alleged in the C $ mplaint, the Trustee w $ uld still be entitled t $ rec$ ver the billi $ ns $ f
d$ llars in false pr $ fits funds $ btained fr $ m $ ther invest $ rs that BLMIS paid t $ Pic$ wer. If
Pic$ wer is c $ rrect that rec $ very by the Trustee in this case will deliver t $ the estate
unprecedented sums ( see MTD at 4), that is $ nly because Pic $ wer received an unprecedented
am$ unt $ f $ ther invest $ rs m $ ney fr $ m BLMIS.
II. PICOWER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HE WAS BENEFITINGFROM A FRAUD.
As alleged in the C $ mplaint, Pic $ wers acc $ unts were riddled with blatant and $ bvi$ us
fraud. The C $ mplaint alleges, am $ ng $ ther things, that Pic $ wers acc $ unts rep $ rted: pr $ fitable
trading bef $ re they were $ pened $ r funded ( see C$ mpl. 63(e)); executi $ n $ f trading
instructi $ ns that hadnt yet been given ( see, e.g. , C$ mpl. 63(f), (h), (i)); inexplicable changes
in acc $ unt p $ siti $ ns ( see, e.g. , C$ mpl. 63(i)); $ utlandish returns ( see, e.g. , C$ mpl. 3, 63(a)-
(c), (e)); and at Pic $ wers directi $ n the acc $ mplishment $ f investment results $ ver time
peri$ ds that already had expired ( see C$ mpl. 63(f)). Indeed, the C $ mplaint alleges purp $ rted
trading that is s $ inc$ nsistent with n $ rmal trading activity as t $ c$ mpel the c $ nclusi $ n that
Pic$ wer had t $ have kn $ wn that impr $ per trading activity was $ ccurring. Faced with these
allegati $ ns $ f fraud, Pic $ wer argues $ nly that his withdrawal $ f large sums $ f m$ ney is
inc$ nsistent with his participati $ n in the P $ nzi scheme and challenges certain examples $ f
purp $ rted rates $ f return. The allegati $ ns $ f irregular acc $ unt activity are $ therwise c $ mpletely
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
16/82
4
disregarded. Presumably, this is because the facts alleged in the C $ mplaint indisputably
establish, at a minimum, that Pic $ wer was $ r sh $ uld have been $ n n$ tice that he was
participating in a fraud.
A. Pic ( wers pr ( fit fr ( m the P ( nzi scheme d ( es n ( t pr ( ve his inn ( cence.
Pic$ wer makes the parad $ xical argument that he c $ uld n $ t have been c $ mplicit in the
P$ nzi scheme because he made t $$ much m $ ney fr $ m it. His en $ rm$ us withdrawals, he argues,
w$ uld have placed a strain $ n BLMIS because they required BLMIS t $ raise additi $ nal billi $ ns
$ f d$ llars $ n sh $ rt n$ tice. Thus, Pic $ wer c $ ntends, the fact $ f his large withdrawals establishes
that he must have been unaware $ f the fraud. This argument d $ es n$ t speak t $ the legal
sufficiency $ f the allegati $ ns in the C $ mplaint, as is required in a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss.
N$ netheless, Pic $ wers premise that making billi $ ns $ f d$ llars fr $ m a P $ nzi scheme is a badge
$ f inn$ cence is dubi $ us at best. And it is n $ t merely the sheer am $ unt $ f pr $ fit he reaped that
sh$ uld have put Pic $ wer $ n n$ tice $ f fraud. As alleged in the C $ mplaint, the unusual (if n $ t
unlawful) activity in his acc $ unts, including $ ne rep $ rted negative net cash balance $ f
appr $
ximately $6 billi$
n at the time$
f Mad$
ffs arrest (C$
mpl. 63(d)), was clear evidence thats$ mething was seri $ usly amiss at BLMIS. N $ legitimate br $ ker-dealer w $ uld all $ w this invest $ r
t$ maintain such a staggering margin balance.
As t $ Pic$ wers argument that his withdrawals must have strained the P $ nzi scheme, it is
w$ rth n $ ting that Pic $ wers largest withdrawals were generally made quarterly. ( See C$ mpl. Ex.
A.) Acc $ rdingly, BLMIS c $ uld anticipate Pic $ wers withdrawals and there was n $ need f $ r
Mad $ ff t$ raise the funds $ n sh$ rt n$ tice. It is significant, m $ re$ ver, that as early as 2003 even
bef $ re Mad $ ffs scheme began t $ unravel BLMIS c $ uld n $ t pay Pic $ wer the quarterly sums
that he was demanding. Instead, $ n several $ ccasi $ ns starting in September 2003, BLMIS paid
Pic$ wer $ nly a fracti $ n $ f the am $ unt that he $ riginally requested. BLMIS failure t $ pay
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
17/82
5
Pic$ wer sums that purp $ rtedly were in his acc $ unts $ r $ therwise available t $ him is further
evidence that Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn $ f Mad $ ffs fraud. This evidence bec $ mes
even m $ re c$ mpelling given Pic $ wers apparent lack $ f c$ mplaint ab $ ut his inability t $ access
billi $ ns $ f d$ llars rep $ rted $ n his BLMIS acc $ unt statements.
B. Pic ( wer knew ( r sh ( uld have kn ( wn ( f ( bvi ( us fictiti ( us activity in his( wn acc ( unts.
Pic$ wer c $ mplains that the Trustee has failed t $ allege with specificity facts that w $ uld
dem$ nstrate that he was $ n n$ tice $ f fraud at BLMIS. Am $ ng the many flaws in this argument
is that Pic $ wer simply ign $ res the pages $ f detailed factual allegati $ ns in the C $ mplaint
describing patent fraud in his acc$
unts. While n$
t apparent fr $
m Pic$
wers l$
ne allusi$
n t$
what the Trustee refers t $ as Mad $ ffs backdating $ f certain trades in certain years (MTD at
16), the C $ mplaint describes numer $ us examples $ f c$ nduct specific t $ Pic$ wers acc $ unts that
sh$ uld have made it clear that he was participating in a fraud.
Despite Pic $ wers attempts t $ wave them $ ff, the instances $ f backdating alleged in the
C$ mplaint are far fr $ m min $ r $ r is$ lated events. F $ r example, the C $ mplaint alleges that $ n
April 18, 2006, Pic $ wer wired $125 milli $ n t$ BLMIS in $ rder t $ $ pen an acc $ unt. (C $ mpl.
63(e).) This dep $ sit c $ nstituted m $ re than 1/4 $ f the t $ tal cash that Pic $ wer ever invested in
BLMIS. Within tw $ weeks, the $125 milli $ n dep $ sit had purp $ rtedly gr $ wn t $ $164 milli $ n
because $ f a dramatic gain $ n the securities held in the acc $ unt all $ f which supp $ sedly had
been purchased three m $ nths earlier, in January. (C $ mpl. 63(e).) S $ Pic$ wer, wh $ carefully
m$ nit$ red these acc $ unts thr $ ugh his $ wn p $ rtf $ li$ appraisal system as well as thr $ ugh p $ rtf $ li$
management rep $ rts and cust $ mer statements received fr $ m BLMIS, knew $ r sh$ uld have
kn$ wn that within tw $ weeks after he $ pened his acc $ unt, he had made alm $ st $40 milli $ n fr $ m
trading that supp $ sedly $ ccurred m $ nths bef $ re the acc $ unt was $ pened $ r funded. Because $ f
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
18/82
6
this spectacular and $ bvi$ usly fictiti $ us trading success, Pic $ wer was able t $ withdraw his
$ riginal $125 milli $ n within five m $ nths $ f investing it, leaving a purp $ rted $81 milli $ n in the
acc$ unt t$ enj$ y c$ ntinued gr $ wth in value. This is but $ ne example $ f patently fraudulent
activity. Numer $ us $ ther incidents are alleged in the C $ mplaint and $ therwise kn $ wn t $ the
Trustee based $ n his c $ ntinued investigati $ n. There is n $ legitimate explanati $ n f $ r these events
n$ r any p $ ssibility that they escaped Pic $ wers n $ tice.
1. Pic $ wer cl $ sely m $ nit$ red his BLMIS acc $ unts.
As a thresh $ ld matter, the C $ mplaint alleges that Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn
ab$ ut the fraud in Defendants acc $ unts because he c $ ntr $ lled and cl $ sely m $ nit$ red each
acc$ unt. The C $ mplaint alleges that Pic $ wer directed withdrawals fr $ m and transfers am $ ng the
vari$ us acc $ unts; directed supp $ sed trading activity within the acc $ unts, including directi $ n that
sales $ r purchases be made f $ r purp $ ses $ f achieving gains $ r l$ sses; directed payments t $ and
am$ ng vari $ us Defendants fr $ m vari $ us acc $ unts; and executed cust $ mer agreements, trade
auth $ rizati$ n agreements and $ ther d $ cumentati $ n f $ r the acc $ unts. (C $ mpl. 60.) The
C$
mplaint als$
alleges that, t$
gether with his agent April Freilich, Pic$
wer maintained his$
wnc$ mputerized client appraisal $ r p$ rtf $ li$ appraisal system, thr $ ugh which he tracked and
m$ nit$ red each acc $ unt, including the securities purp $ rtedly held in each acc $ unt, the date they
were supp $ sedly purchased, the price, the quantity, and the unrealized gain $ r l$ ss. (C $ mpl.
61.) In additi $ n, Pic $ wer was $ ne $ f a select few BLMIS invest $ rs wh $ , acc$ rding t $ BLMIS
rec$ rds, received the full p $ rtf $ li$ management rep $ rt generated by BLMIS. Am $ ng $ ther
things, these BLMIS rep $ rts included a target rate $ f return (C $ mpl. 59) against which the
purp$ rted actual rate $ f return, which als $ was included, c $ uld be tracked. Thus, as alleged in
the C $ mplaint, due t $ his active inv $ lvement in his BLMIS acc $ unts and investments, Pic $ wer
was $ r sh$ uld have been aware $ f all $ f the activity alleged in each $ f his acc $ unts.
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
19/82
7
2. Pic $ wer was aware $ f fraudulent activity in his acc $ unts.
Pic$ wer fails t $ address in any way the Trustees allegati $ ns $ f specific fraudulent
activity in his acc $ unts because they al $ ne suffice t $ defeat his m $ ti$ n, even with $ ut all $ f the
$ ther indicia $ f fraud alleged in the C $ mplaint. The C $ mplaint identifies specific fraudulent
transacti $ ns, generally including date, acc $ unt, and am $ unt at issue, in m $ re than sufficient
detail t $ put Pic $ wer $ n n$ tice $ f the basis $ f the Trustees claims. F $ r example:
The C $ mplaint alleges that acc $ rding t $ BLMIS rec $ rds, in May 2007, Pic $ wer
and Freilich asked BLMIS empl $ yees t $ change the trading activity that had supp $ sedly
$ ccurred in the Pic $ wer F $ undati $ n Acc $ unt f $ r January and February 2006 in $ rder t $ generate
additi $ nal gains. (C $ mpl. 63(f).) After s $ me discussi $ n ab$ ut the exact am $ unt $ f gain
Pic$ wer wanted, and clarificati $ n that the gains sh $ uld be f $ r 2007, Freilich directed BLMIS t $
generate $12.3 milli $ n in gains f $ r January and February. 3 (C$ mpl. 63(f)( i).) Alth $ ugh it was
several m $ nths t $$ late t $ make any actual trades in January $ r February, BLMIS created
statements that rep $ rted new transacti $ ns in January and February 2007 resulting in a purp $ rted
gain$
f $12.6 milli$
n. (C$
mpl. 63(f)( ii).) Putting aside the fact that Pic$
wer and his agent specifically directed such fictiti $ us activity, this revisi $ nist hist $ ry was $ r sh$ uld have been
$ bvi$ us t$ Pic$ wer, wh $ m$ nit$ red these acc $ unts thr $ ugh cust $ mer statements, his $ wn
p$ rtf $ li$ appraisal system, and BLMIS full p $ rtf $ li$ management rep $ rt. Pic $ wer knew $ r
sh$ uld have kn $ wn that the Pic $ wer F $ undati $ ns May 2007 statement reflected different
h$ ldings than had been reflected in its acc $ unt statements f $ r January thr $ ugh April 2007.
3 Alth $ ugh the C $ mplaint specifies that the trades t $$ k place in 2007 (C $ mpl. 63(f)( ii) (transacti $ ns f $ r them$ nths $ f January and February 2007)), elsewhere it suggests that they t $$ k place in 2006, c $ nsistent withFreilichs $ riginal suggesti $ n. (C $ mpl. 63(f)( ii) ( m $ re than 15 m $ nths earlier).) F $ r clarity, the trades wererep$ rted by BLMIS as taking place in January and February 2007, three t $ f $ ur m$ nths bef $ re the c $ nversati $ ns atissue.
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
20/82
8
(C$ mpl. 63(f)( ii).) The t $ tal value $ f the acc $ unt was $54.6 milli $ n higher $ n May 31, 2007
than it had been in April 2007 largely because $ f these newly fabricated h $ ldings and new
hist $ ry. (C $ mpl. 63(f)( ii).) This new acc $ unt inf $ rmati$ n sh$ uld have been inc $ nsistent
with the inf $ rmati$ n in Pic $ wers $ wn p $ rtf $ li$ appraisal system. These allegati $ ns indicate
fraud.
The C $ mplaint alleges several $ ther examples $ f evidently fictiti $ us trading
activity. F $ r example, Pic $ wer faxed a letter dated December 1, 2005 directing vari $ us sales
acr $ ss vari $ us acc $ unts. BLMIS rep $ rted the sales as having settled $ n December 2. This al $ ne
is suspici $ us, as settlement is typically three business days after the trade date, and the sales
w$ uld thus have had t $ take place bef $ re December 1. But the letter was n $ t actually faxed t $
BLMIS $ n December 1 it was faxed $ n December 22 and backdated by Pic $ wer t $ December
1. (C $ mpl. 63(h).) In case there was any questi $ n as t $ the timing, attached t $ the faxed letter
(and referenced in it) was a c $ py $ f pages fr $ m Pic $ wers p $ rtf $ li$ appraisal rep $ rt dated
December 16. Pic $ wers $ wn independently maintained rec $ rds reflect the st $ ck that was
supp$ sedly s $ ld bef $ re December 2 was still held by the acc $ unts as $ f December 16. (C $ mpl.
63(h).) In $ ther w $ rds, Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn that certain st $ ck was supp $ sedly
held in his acc $ unts $ n December 16; that $ n December 22 he faxed a letter (that was backdated
t$ December 1) requesting that the st $ ck be s $ ld; and that the st $ ck was rep $ rted as having been
s$ ld bef $ re December 1. These allegati $ ns indicate fraud.
Similarly, the C $ mplaint alleges that in December 2005, BLMIS created
backdated purchases $ f st$ ck in certain acc $ unts, rec $ rding them as having settled alm $ st a
full year earlier between January 12 and January 20, 2005. (C $ mpl. 63(i)( ii).) Al $ ng with an
instant unrealized gain $ f ab$ ut $79 milli $ n, the acc $ unts were instantly credited, in December
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
21/82
9
2005, with quarterly dividends f $ r March, June and September 2005, t $ taling ab $ ut $82,000.
(C$ mpl. 63(i)( ii).) Neither the dividends n $ r the purchases appear $ n Pic $ wers 2005 acc $ unt
statements f $ r the m $ nths fr $ m January 2005 thr $ ugh N $ vember 2005 fr $ m BLMIS. (C $ mpl.
63(i)(ii).) N $ r d$ the st $ ck p$ siti$ ns, which supp $ sedly w $ uld have been held since January,
appear $ n the p $ rtf $ li$ appraisal system that Pic $ wer maintained as $ f N$ vember 30, 2005. We
kn$ w this because Pic $ wer attached print $ uts fr $ m his system t $ a fax he sent t $ BLMIS $ n
December 29, 2005. (C $ mpl. 63(i).) These allegati $ ns indicate fraud.
These allegati $ ns are separate fr $ m and in additi $ n t$ the $ ther indicia $ f fraud alleged in
the C $ mplaint, including, am $ ng $ ther things, implausible rep $ rted returns and trading success,
an en $ rm$ us negative equity balance, and specified irregularities in BLMIS general $ perati $ ns.
3. Pic $ wers acc $ unts rep $ rted implausible rates $ f return.
Instead $ f engaging in any discussi $ n $ f the specified fraudulent activity alleged in his
acc$ unts, Pic $ wer challenges the rep $ rted rates $ f return alleged in the C $ mplaint. Specifically,
he disputes the C $ mplaints allegati $ ns that $ ne acc $ unt purp $ rted t $ earn $ ver 950% in 1999
and that tw$
$
ther acc$
unts rep$
rted annual rates$
f return$
ver 100% f $
r the years 1996 thr $
ugh1999. The acc $ unt statements f $ r these acc $ unts, he argues, sh $ w that the first acc $ unt $ nly
earned a 37.6% return in 1999 and that neither $ f the $ ther acc $ unts earned an annual return $ f
m$ re than 100% in any $ f the listed years. ( See MTD at 14.)
Putting aside the fact that the rates $ f return rep $ rted by these three acc $ unts in these
years are $ nly a small fracti $ n $ f the implausibly high rates $ f return rep $ rted by Pic $ wers m $ re
than twenty-f $ ur acc $ unts $ ver at least twenty-five years, Pic $ wer misses the p $ int. N $ acc$ unt
at BLMIS actually earned any rate $ f return: BLMIS did n $ t engage in any securities trading
activity. At issue in this case is what BLMIS t $ ld Pic $ wer his acc $ unts were earning. The
purp $ rted rates $ f return (b $ th actual and target) f $ r each acc $ unt were specified $ n the p $ rtf $ li$
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
22/82
10
management rep $ rts that Pic $ wer received fr $ m BLMIS. The C $ mplaint c $ rrectly alleges that
these $ utrage $ usly high fabricated rates $ f return including $ ver 100%, $ ver 550%, and $ ver
950% were rep $ rted t $ Pic$ wer $ n these d $ cuments. (Other acc $ unts, as alleged in the
C$ mplaint, rep $ rted wildly l $ w rates $ f return). If the rates $ f return rep $ rted in the p $ rtf $ li$
management rep $ rts were inc $ nsistent with inf $ rmati $ n c$ ntained in Pic $ wers cust $ mer
acc$ unt statements, this in itself was $ r sh$ uld have been an independent sign t $ Pic$ wer that
BLMIS was n $ t engaged in legitimate trading activity.
M$ re$ ver, if Pic $ wer did in fact attempt t $ calculate his acc $ unts rates $ f return based
$ n the inf $ rmati$ n c$ ntained in cust $ mer statements, $ r f $ r that matter his $ wn p $ rtf $ li$
appraisal system, this exercise al $ ne w $ uld have emphasized the irregularities in Pic $ wers
acc$ unts. One $ f the fact $ rs that must be c $ nsidered in determining an acc $ unts rate $ f return is
the equity that it h $ lds at vari $ us p$ ints in time. Since rep $ rts $ f purchases and sales $ f st$ ck
were created in Pic $ wers acc $ unts m $ nths after the transacti $ ns that they supp $ sedly described,
he sh $ uld have had great difficulty calculating c $ mprehensible rates $ f return based $ n his
acc$ unt statements, and any attempt t $ d$ s$ w$ uld have emphasized the already $ bvi$ us
irregularities.
Pic$ wer als $ argues that the returns rep $ rted in his acc $ unts, even as alleged in the
C$ mplaint, were n $ t t$$ far $ ut $ f line with the results $ f investment managers such as the
legendary James Sim $ ns and $ thers alth $ ugh, as the SEC and the media have widely rep $ rted,
James Sim $ ns himself f $ und Mad $ ffs investment returns s $ unusual and suspici $ us that he
investigated them, withdrew his funds fr $ m BLMIS and urged $ ther invest $ rs t$ d$ s$ as well. 4
4See Office $ f Investigati $ ns, U.S. Securities and Exchange C $ mmissi $ n, Investigati $ n $ f Failure $ f the SEC t $ Unc$ ver Bernard Mad $ ffs P $ nzi Scheme (Public Versi $ n), Rep. N $ . OIG-509, 145-57 (Aug. 31, 2009), availableat http://www.sec.g $ v/news/studies/2009/ $ ig-509.pdf; Jenny Strasburg and Sc $ tt Patters $ n, The Mad # ff Fraud:
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
23/82
11
Pic$ wers argument $ nce again fails t $ address the legal sufficiency $ f the C $ mplaint.
M$ re$ ver, aside fr $ m the fundamental flaws in Pic $ wers premise, his $ wn m $ ti$ n dem $ nstrates
the inherent n $ nsense $ f this c $ mparis $ n. As Pic $ wer p $ ints $ ut, Defendants acc $ unt
statements reflected investments m $ stly in blue chip c $ rp$ rate equity securities and l $ w-risk
securities such as sh $ rt-term U.S. Treasury Bills $ r m$ ney market funds and did n $ t reflect
any $ pti$ ns trading. (MTD at 7.) Pic $ wers $ wn argument in defense $ f the credibility $ f his
returns, theref $ re, is that BLMIS purp $ rted t $ surpass the returns achieved by the m $ st
successful investment managers in the w $ rld, and purp $ rted t $ d$ s$ based entirely $ n l$ w risk
c$ nservative buy-and-h $ ld investments in blue chip st $ cks and Treasury Bills. This is a feat that
has been acc $ mplished by n $ $ ne. Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn that this scheme was far
t$$ g$$ d t$ be true.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Pic$ wers m $ ti$ n is a c $ nc$ cti$ n $ f irrelevant c $ unter-facts, arguments that ign $ re b$ th
the allegati $ ns in the C $ mplaint and the relevant legal standards, and factual challenges that are
n$
t pr $ perly bef
$re the C
$urt
$n a m
$ti
$n t
$dismiss. Pic
$wer als
$makes multiple attempts t
$
raise here the questi $ n $ f h$ w claims submitted by invest $ rs sh $ uld be evaluated by the Trustee
pursuant t $ the Securities Invest $ r Pr $ tecti $ n Act, 15 U.S.C. 78 aaa et seq. (2009) (SIPA).
N$ ne $ f this is a basis f $ r a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss the C $ mplaint.
P ( int I: Every Allegati ( n ( f Fraud in the C ( mplaint is Supp ( rted by Specific Facts(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int I)
Pic$ wer challenges the particularity $ f the allegati $ ns $ f fraud against him, alth $ ugh he
d$ es n$ t identify which allegati $ ns he challenges. The fraud at issue in this case is the fraud
Renaissance W # rried Ab # ut Mad # ff in 03 , Wall St. J., Sept. 8, 2009, at C3; Aar $ n Luchetti & Jenny Strasburg,Sim# ns N # ti# n: All In, Then All Out , Wall St. J., Feb. 25, 2009, at C1.
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
24/82
12
c$ mmitted by Bernard Mad $ ff and BLMIS, which is indisputably alleged in the C $ mplaint and
c$ nceded by Pic $ wer. Each allegati $ n c$ ncerning what Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn
regarding Mad $ ffs fraud is supp $ rted by ample factual allegati $ ns, m $ st $ f which are ign $ red
by Pic $ wer in his m $ ti$ n.
P ( int II: The C ( mplaint Alleges Av ( idance Claims Based ( n C ( nstructive Fraud(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int VII)
Pic$ wer als $ claims that the Trustees c $ nstructive fraud claims are insufficient because
he has n $ t and cann $ t allege that Pic $ wer did n $ t pr $ vide fair c $ nsiderati $ n f $ r the Transfers.
Like many $ ther claims challenged by Pic $ wer, whether invest $ rs pr $ vided fair c $ nsiderati $ n is
a factual determinati$
n that is n$
t pr $ perly bef
$re the C
$urt
$n a m
$ti
$n t
$dismiss. But here
again, Pic $ wer fails t $ ackn$ wledge, much less address, the C $ mplaints allegati $ ns, which
establish b $ th that Pic $ wer failed t $ pr $ vide reas $ nably equivalent value f $ r the Transfers in
excess $ f his investment and that he lacked g $$ d faith. The Trustee is entitled t $ alternatively
plead a preference claim, as he did. Pic $ wers argument based $ n h$ w net equity sh $ uld be
calculated under SIPA (the Net Equity Dispute) is n $ t pr $ perly raised in a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss
and is already bef $ re the C $ urt pursuant t $ the Scheduling Order dated September 10, 2009.
P ( int III: The C ( mplaint Alleges Pic ( wers Alter Eg ( Liability(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int II)
Pic$ wers remaining arguments attempt, with equal futility, t $ nibble away at the edges
$ f the C$ mplaint. In P $ int II $ f his m $ ti$ n (addressed at P $ int III herein), Pic $ wer argues that
the Trustee has failed t $ allege an alter eg $ claim against him. The C $ mplaint alleges facts
sufficient t $ state a claim that the Defendants, under the d $ mini $ n and c $ ntr $ l $ f Pic $ wer, were
b$ th used f $ r fraud and $ ther wr $ ngful c $ nduct and served as mere instrumentalities $ f Pic $ wer.
T$ the extent that Pic $ wer challenges the facts in the C $ mplaint supp $ rting th $ se allegati $ ns, his
m$ ti$ n in this regard is n $ t pr $ perly bef $ re the C $ urt. N $ tably, Pic $ wer d $ es n $ t challenge the
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
25/82
13
Trustees agency allegati $ ns, which require imputati $ n $ f his kn $ wledge and c $ nduct t $ all
Defendants and pursuant t $ which he is liable f $ r his $ wn c $ nduct.
P ( int IV: All Defendants Received Av ( idable Transfers(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int III)
Pic$ wer c $ mplains that Exhibit B t $ the C $ mplaint fails t $ identify transfers t $ f $ ur
defendants, but ign $ res the C $ mplaints allegati $ ns that Exhibit B is n $ t exhaustive and that the
Trustees investigati $ n is c $ ntinuing; specific transfers t $ these f $ ur defendants have been
identified and are attached t $ this resp $ nse as Exhibit 1.
P ( int V: The Trustees Turn ( ver Claim is Pr ( perly Stated(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int IV)
Pic$ wers argument that the Trustees turn $ ver claim is n $ t ripe until after the av $ idance
claim is decided ign $ res the express language $ f SIPA that such pr $ perty is pr $ perty $ f the
debt$ r, and sh $ uld als $ be denied f $ r reas $ ns $ f judicial ec $ n$ my.
P ( int VI: The Relevant Date f ( r the Six Year C ( nveyances is C ( rrectly Alleged(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int V)
Pic$ wers argument that the peri $ d f $ r the six year transfers sh $ uld begin six years
pri$ r t$ May 12, 2009 (the filing $ f the adversary c $ mplaint against Pic $ wer) rather than six
years pri $ r t$ December 11, 2008 (the filing $ f the SIPA pr $ ceeding) is wh $ lly with $ ut merit.
Pic$ wers p $ siti$ n, as he tacitly c $ ncedes, is c $ ntradicted by 25 years $ f case law, and it finds n $
supp$ rt in the statute $ r legislative intent. M $ re$ ver, it is irrelevant since the state statute $ f
limitati $ ns peri $ d has n $ t yet run, having been t $ lled under New Y $ rk law, Secti $ n 108(c) $ f the
Bankruptcy C $ de, and having been equitably t $ lled under the C.P.L.R. and Secti $ n 544(a) $ f the
C$ de.
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
26/82
14
P ( int VII: The Trustee Has Sufficiently Allegeda Cause ( f Acti ( n Based ( n the Disc ( very Rule
(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int VI)
Similarly meritless is Pic $ wers argument that the Trustee may n $ t rely $ n the disc $ very
rule. The Trustee is n $ t required under the law $ f this District t $ identify in the C $ mplaint a
specific credit $ r wh $ c$ uld n $ t reas $ nably have learned $ f Mad $ ffs fraud. The fact that the
Trustee has alleged red flags that w $ uld have been apparent t $ invest $ rs $ ther than Pic $ wer in
n$ way suggests that every single $ ther BLMIS invest $ r ( see MTD at 45) c $ uld have
disc $ vered $ r, like Pic $ wer, knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn $ f the fraud. Like many $ f
Pic$ wers $ ther challenges, this is a fact-specific inquiry that is n $ t pr $ perly bef $ re the C $ urt $ n
this m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss. (MTD at 45.)
P ( int VIII: The C ( mplaint Adequately Alleges Subsequent Transfers(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int VIII)
Similarly, Pic $ wers argument that the Trustees subsequent transfer claim must be
dismissed ign $ res that the Defendants are alleged $ n inf $ rmati$ n and belief t $ be subsequent
transferees based $ n the pattern $ f activity, transfers and mutual c $ ntr $ l within BLMIS, as
described in the C $ mplaint. These allegati $ ns are sufficient t $ state a claim.
P ( int I [ : The C ( mplaint Pr ( perly Alleges Disall ( wance ( f Defendants SIPA Claims(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int I b )
Pic$ wer ign $ res the fact that the Trustees cause $ f acti $ n t$ disall $ w Pic $ wers SIPA
claim is based n $ t $ nly $ n the inadequacy $ f the claims but $ n Secti $ n 502 $ f the Bankruptcy
C$ de, which prevents the transferee $ f an av $ idable transfer fr $ m receiving a distributi $ n unless
he first returns the transfer. Pic $ wers sec $ nd attempt t $ raise the Net Equity Dispute, which is
already bef $ re this C $ urt and scheduled f $ r a separate hearing inv $ lving all interested parties,
must als $ fail.
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
27/82
15
P ( int [ : Pic ( wers M ( ti ( n t ( Dismiss Certain Remedies is Impr ( per and With ( ut Merit(resp $ nding t $ MTD P $ int b )
Finally, a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss f $ r facial insufficiency cann $ t be based $ n the Trustees
ch$ ice $ f remedies s $ ught in his prayer f $ r relief, including a c $ nstructive trust and the return $ f
tax refunds, b $ th $ f which are justified in this acti $ n.
ARGUMENT
In determining whether a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss sh $ uld be granted, a c $ urt must analyze
whether a c $ mplaint c $ ntains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, t $ state a claim t $
relief that is plausible $ n its face. Ashcr # ft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) ( qu # ting Bell
Atlantic C # rp. v. Tw # mbly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When there are well-pleaded factual
allegati $ ns, a c $ urt sh $ uld assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give
rise t $ an entitlement t $ relief. Id. at 1950. In c $ nsidering a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), [t]he C $ urts functi $ n . . . is n $ t t$ weigh the evidence that might be presented at [a]
trial but merely t $ determine whether the c $ mplaint itself is legally sufficient. Jenkins v. New
Y # rk City Transit Auth # rity , --- F. Supp. 2d ---, N $ . 08 Civ. 6814, 2009 WL 1940103, at *1 (July
1, 2009) ( qu # ting G # ldman v. Belden , 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985)).
I. THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PICOWER ARE PLED WITH SPECIFICITY
In P$ int I $ f his m $ ti$ n, Pic $ wer argues that the C $ mplaint lacks factual supp $ rt f $ r
claiming that Mr. Pic $ wer was a participant in Mad $ ffs fraud. (MTD at 13.) This argument is
n$ t $ ffered in supp $ rt $ f the dismissal $ f any particular claim; rather, Pic $ wer demands that the
Trustees fraud allegati $ ns sh $ uld be dismissed f $ r failure t $ c$ mply with the particularity
required by Rule 9(b). 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (2009); (MTD at 13-17.) Pic $ wer c $ ntests the
5 Rule 9(b) is applicable t $ fraud pleadings in the bankruptcy c $ ntext, alth $ ugh such pleadings are extended greater liberality because a trustee is a third party $ utsider t $ the fraudulent transacti $ n, that must plead fraud $ n
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
28/82
16
Trustees allegati $ ns regarding rep $ rted rates $ f return (and argues that they are unremarkable
in any event (MTD at 15)), argues that his ability t $ withdraw funds fr $ m the P $ nzi scheme in
fact sh $ ws his inn $ cence, and asserts that the allegati $ ns $ f backdating d $ n$ t supp $ rt the
inference that Pic $ wer knew that Mad $ ff was running a P $ nzi scheme. (MTD at 14-16.) Given
Mad $ ffs reputati $ n and Pic $ wers pattern $ f withdrawals, he c $ ncludes, the Trustee has failed
t$ allege facts supp $ rting claims $ f c$ mplicity and fraud against Pic $ wer. (MTD at 17.)
Alth $ ugh n $ t apparent fr $ m Pic $ wers m $ ti$ n, the Trustee has n $ t br $ ught a claim
seeking damages fr $ m Pic $ wer as a c $ -c$ nspirat $ r $ f BLMIS. Rather, the C $ mplaint alleges
that BLMIS engaged in fraud ( see, e.g ., C$ mpl. 1, 14, 19-32) and that Pic $ wer knew $ r
sh$ uld have kn $ wn that he was benefiting fr $ m and being c $ mpensated f $ r fraudulent activity. 6
(See, e.g ., C$ mpl. 3, 4, 59, 63.) Mad $ ffs fraud is alleged in the C $ mplaint and is c $ nceded
by Pic $ wer. The allegati $ ns in the C $ mplaint c $ ncerning what Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have
kn$ wn are amply supp $ rted by specific factual allegati $ ns, as described ab $ ve.
Pic$ wer n $ netheless demands that the Trustees fraud allegati $ ns against Mr. Pic $ wer
and the Defendants be stricken. (MTD at 17.) But, since Pic $ wer ign $ res m $ st $ f the factual
allegati $ ns dem $ nstrating his fraudulent intent $ r kn$ wledge, and since his attempt t $ c$ ntradict
sec$ ndhand kn $ wledge f $ r the benefit $ f the estate and all $ f its credit $ rs. Hassett v. Zimmerman (In re OPM Leasing Servs., Inc .), 32 B.R. 199, 203 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983) (Lifland, J.).6 N$ tably, Pic $ wer makes n $ legal argument challenging the sufficiency $ f the Trustees claims f $ r av$ idance $ f the
Transfers based $ n actual fraudulent intent. This is because Pic $ wer has n $ basis t $ raise any such challenge. See,e.g ., Bear, Stearns Sec. C # rp. v. Gredd (In re Manhattan Inv. Fund Ltd.) , 397 B.R. 1, 8 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (wheredebt$ r is engaged in a P $ nzi scheme, actual intent t $ defraud may be presumed as a matter $ f law); Drenis v.
Haligiannis , 452 F. Supp. 2d 418, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (same). This s $ -called P $ nzi presumpti $ n is based $ n therec$ gniti$ n that transfers made in the c $ urse $ f a P$ nzi scheme c $ uld have been made f $ r n$ purp$ se $ ther than t $ hinder, delay, $ r defraud credit $ rs. Bear, Stearns Sec. C # rp. v. Gredd (In re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd.) , 397B.R. at 8 ( qu # ting Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Sec. C # rp. (In re Manhattan Fund Ltd) , 359 B.R. 510, 517-18 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Lifland, J.)).
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
29/82
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
30/82
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
31/82
19
A. Pic ( wer has received ample n ( tice pleading ( f the c ( nstructive fraudclaims.
A transfer may be av $ ided as c $ nstructively fraudulent under the Bankruptcy C $ de if,
am$ ng $ ther things, the transferee received m $ ney fr $ m the debt $ r f $ r which the transferee did
n$ t pr $ vide reas $ nably equivalent value. 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) (2009). The parallel
pr $ visi$ n in the New Y $ rk Debt $ r and Credit $ r Law permits a trustee t $ av$ id a c $ nveyance that
was made with $ ut fair c $ nsiderati $ n. N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 273 (McKinney 2009). Fair
c$ nsiderati $ n under New Y $ rk law is defined generally the same as reas $ nably equivalent
value under the Bankruptcy C $ de, except that it als $ requires that the transferee pr $ vided the
value$
r c$
nsiderati$
n in g$$
d faith. N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 272 (McKinney 2009);
Mendels # hn v. Jac # b# witz (In re Jac # bs) , 394 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008). The questi $ n
$ f whether the debt $ r received fair c $ nsiderati $ n f $ r a transfer is a highly fact based inquiry that
requires an examinati $ n int $ the t$ tality $ f circumstances, and theref $ re is n $ t pr $ perly bef $ re
the C $ urt $ n a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss. See, e.g ., 5 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 548.05(1)(b) (2009) (In
$ rder t $ determine if a fair ec $ n$ mic exchange has $ ccurred in a case $ f a suspected fraudulent
transfer, the bankruptcy c $ urt must analyze all the circumstances surr $ unding the transfer in
questi $ n.).
When a c $ mplaint alleges c $ nstructive fraud, the heightened requirements $ f Federal
Rule $ f Civil Pr $ cedure 9(b) d $ n$ t apply. See, e.g., Drenis, 452 F. Supp. 2d at 428-29;
Spanierman Gallery, PSP v. L # ve, 320 F. Supp. 2d 108, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Sec. Invest # r
Pr # tect. C # rp. v. Stratt # n Oakm # nt, Inc. , 234 B.R. 293, 319 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999). The
plaintiff need n $ t pr $ vide specific facts t $ supp$ rt its allegati $ ns, see Ericks # n v. Pardus , 551
U.S. 89, 93 (2007); rather, the plaintiff need $ nly give the defendant fair n $ tice $ f what the . . .
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
32/82
20
claim is and the gr $ unds up $ n which it rests, Tw# mbly, 550 U.S. at 555 ( qu # ting C # nley v.
Gibs # n, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
It is virtually a universally-accepted rule indeed, Pic $ wer himself c $ ncedes that when
invest $ rs invest in a P $ nzi scheme, payments that exceed their investments are n $ t made f $ r
reas$ nably equivalent value and c $ nstitute fraudulent c $ nveyances that may be rec $ vered by the
Trustee. See, e.g., D # nell v. K # well , 533 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct.
640 (2008) (Where causes $ f acti$ n are br $ ught . . . against P $ nzi scheme invest $ rs, the general
rule is that t $ the extent inn $ cent invest $ rs have received payments in excess $ f the am $ unts $ f
principal that they $ riginally invested, th $ se payments are av $ idable as fraudulent transfers . . .
.); Sender v. Buchannan (In re Hedged-Investments Ass # cs.) , 84 F.3d 1286, 1290 (10th Cir.
1996); Sch # les v. Lehmann , 56 F.3d 750, 757-58 (7th Cir. 1995) (P $ sner, J.); Bay # u Superfund,
LLC v. WAM L # ng/Sh # rt Fund II, LLP (In re Bay # u Gr # up, LLC) , 362 B.R. 624, 636 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Plaintiffs are c $ rrect in asserting in their brief that virtually every c $ urt t$
address the questi $ n has held unflinchingly that t $ the extent that invest $ rs have received
payments in excess $ f the am $ unts they have invested, th $ se payments are v $ idable as fraudulent
transfers.) (internal qu $ tati$ ns $ mitted); In re Taubman , 160 B.R. 964, 986 (Bankr. S.D. Ohi $
1993).
Each Defendant withdrew fictiti $ us pr $ fits in excess $ f that Defendants investment in
BLMIS. The Trustee has alleged that Pic $ wer c $ ntr $ lled the acc $ unts $ f each $ f the Defendants.
(See C$ mpl. 60-61.) The C $ mplaint alleges that Pic $ wers acc $ unts withdrew a t $ tal $ f m$ re
than $5 billi $ n in fictiti $ us pr $ fit ( see, e.g. , C$ mpl. 2), and the Trustees c $ ntinuing
investigati $ n indicates that the actual number is greater than $7 billi $ n. The Trustee has alleged
that this entire am $ unt c $ nsists $ f fictiti $ us pr $ fit generated by a P $ nzi scheme and is, in reality,
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
33/82
21
n$ thing m $ re than m $ ney $ btained fr $ m $ ther invest $ rs. (See, e.g. , C$ mpl. 2, 66.) The
Trustee specified initial dates, meth $ ds $ f payment, and am $ unts $ f av$ idable Transfers in the
C$ mplaint. ( See n$ n-exhaustive list $ f transfers (the Transfers) included in the C $ mplaint at
Exhibit B and list $ f Defendants acc $ unts at Exhibit A.) These allegati $ ns put Pic $ wer $ n
ample n $ tice $ f the claims against him and the basis $ f these claims, and satisfies the Trustees
pleading $ bligati $ ns. See, e.g., Drenis, 452 F. Supp. 2d at 428-29 (There is n $ argument that
plaintiffs pleadings fail t $ meet c $ nstructive fraud pleading standard where plaintiffs alleged
that defendants received distributi $ ns that exceeded their c $ ntributi $ ns t$ a P$ nzi scheme);
Jalbert v. Zurich Am. Ins. C # . (In re Payt # n C # nstr. C # rp.), 399 B.R. 352, 365 (Bankr. D. Mass.
2009) (identificati $ n $ f time frame and nature $ f the transfers s $ ught t $ be av $ ided was
sufficient n $ tice t $ defendant). The Trustee has additi $ nally alleged that the specified Transfers
were made f $ r less than fair c $ nsiderati $ n because Pic $ wer failed t $ act in g $$ d faith. See In re
Jac # bs, 394 B.R. at 662. As discussed ab $ ve, the C $ mplaint details numer $ us facts
dem$ nstrating that Pic $ wer knew $ r sh$ uld have kn $ wn that he was participating in a fraudulent
enterprise, an enterprise that the debt $ r has admitted and sw $ rn was a P $ nzi scheme. These
allegati $ ns are sufficient t $ sh$ w Pic $ wers lack $ f fair c $ nsiderati $ n f $ r each transfer alleged.
B. The preference claim is pled in the alternative.
Pic$ wer seizes $ n the fact that the Trustee has br $ ught a claim t $ rec$ ver transfers made
within 90 days $ f the filing as v $ idable preferences. 9 Because a preference exists $ nly when
there is an antecedent debt, Pic $ wer argues, the Trustee has c $ nceded the existence $ f an
antecedent debt f $ r the 90 day transfers and f $ r every $ ther transfer alleged in the C $ mplaint.
9 C$ ntrary t $ Pic$ wers claim, the Transfers made during the 90-day preference peri $ d include transfers by check that cleared during the relevant peri $ d, even if the check was dated earlier. See Barnhill v. J # hns # n, 503 U.S. 393,
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
34/82
22
Pic$ wer, $ f c$ urse, ign $ res that this c $ unt has been pled [i]n the alternative (C $ mpl. 71,
81), as specifically permitted under the Federal Rules $ f Civil Pr $ cedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(b)(2) and (3) (2009). The ultimate questi $ n $ f whether there was $ r was n $ t an antecedent
debt is a questi $ n $ f fact t $ be determined at trial and is n $ t pr $ perly bef $ re the C $ urt in a m $ ti$ n
t$ dismiss. See, e.g., Am. Tissue, Inc. v. D # nalds # n, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. C # rp ., 351 F. Supp.
2d 79, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (whether a transfer is f $ r reas $ nably equivalent value is largely a
questi $ n $ f fact) (internal qu $ tati$ n $ mitted); Orbach v. Pappa, 482 F. Supp. 117, 120
(S.D.N.Y. 1979) ("What c $ nstitutes fair c $ nsiderati $ n under this secti $ n must be determined
up$ n the facts and circumstances $ f each particular case."). Pic $ wers m $ ti$ n suggests that he
intends t $ argue that every Transfer was $ n acc $ unt $ f an antecedent debt, regardless $ f whether
$ r n$ t the Transfer c $ nstituted fictiti $ us pr $ fit and alth $ ugh the Trustee has alleged Pic $ wers
lack $ f g$$ d faith. Acc $ rdingly, alternative pleading $ f these causes $ f acti$ n, t$ preserve every
alternative claim the Trustee has t $ these funds, is appr $ priate.
C. Fictiti ( us pr ( fit d ( es n ( t c ( nstitute fair c ( nsiderati ( n.
As discussed ab$
ve, virtually every c$
urt t$
address the issue has held that invest$
rs in aP$ nzi scheme, regardless $ f their g $$ d faith, must surrender t $ the trustee the false pr $ fit they
$ btained during their participati $ n in the scheme. See D # nell , 533 F.3d at 770; In re Hedged-
Investments Ass # cs. , 84 F.3d at 1290; Sch# les , 56 F.3d at 757-58; Bay # u Superfund, LLC v.
WAM L# ng/Sh # rt Fund II, LLP (In re Bay # u Gr # up, LLC) , 362 B.R. at 636; In re Taubman , 160
B.R. at 986. While a g $$ d faith transferee has the right t $ retain payment f $ r a b $ na fide
antecedent debt, fictiti $ us pr $ fits fr $ m a P $ nzi scheme d $ n$ t c$ nstitute such a debt. This is
because an invest $ r in a P $ nzi scheme has n $ legitimate claim t $ fictiti $ us pr $ fits that in fact
394-95 (1992) (in determining if a transfer $ ccurred within the 90-day preference peri $ d, a transfer made by check
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
35/82
23
c$ nsist $ f m$ ney invested by $ ther invest $ rs. T $ the extent the debt $ r pr $ mised such pr $ fits t $
the invest $ r, the pr $ mise was fraudulent, and c $ urts will n $ t enf $ rce a fraud t $ the detriment $ f
$ ther inn $ cent credit $ rs. See D # nell , 533 F.3d at 770; In re Hedged-Investments Ass # cs. , 84
F.3d at 1290; Sch# les , 56 F.3d at 757-58; Bay # u Superfund, LLC v. WAM L # ng/Sh # rt Fund II,
LLP (In re Bay # u Gr # up, LLC) , 362 B.R. at 636; In re Taubman , 160 B.R. at 986.
The single case relied $ n by Pic $ wer is inapp $ site. In Visc# nsi v. Lehman , N$ . 06-3304,
2007 WL 2258827 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2007), the circuit c $ urt affirmed enf $ rcement $ f an
arbitrati $ n award against what was at the time a s $ lvent entity. Lehman Br $ thers was alleged t $
have failed t $ supervise a st $ ckbr $ ker in its empl $ y. The invest $ r br $ ught an arbitrati $ n claim
against Lehman, and the arbitrat $ r was urged t $ award the invest $ r the full am $ unt $ f his
expectancy damages as remedy f $ r the br $ kers fraud. Id. at *4-5. Pic $ wer claims, based $ n
Lehman , that there is s $ me distincti $ n between the trustees generally accepted right t $ rec$ ver
fictiti $ us pr $ fits in a P $ nzi scheme, and his rights t $ rec$ very when the P $ nzi scheme $ perat $ r
is a br $ ker dealer. (MTD at 47.) But the fact that a P $ nzi scheme inv $ lves the sale $ f securities
d$ es n$ t preclude a trustee fr $ m rec $ vering fictiti $ us pr $ fit. See, e.g ., D # nell, 533 F.3d at 770;
In re Hedged-Investments Ass # cs. , 84 F.3d at 1290; Sch# les , 56 F.3d at 757-58; Bay # u
Superfund, LLC v. WAM L # ng/Sh # rt Fund II, LLP (In re Bay # u Gr # up, LLC) , 362 B.R.at 636; In
re Taubman , 160 B.R. at 986.
The difference between Lehman and the vast b $ dy $ f case law supp $ rting the Trustees
av$ idance claim is n $ t that Lehman inv$ lved a br $ ker dealer. It is that Lehman had t$ d$ with
the enf $ rceability $ f an arbitrat $ rs award and n $ thing whats $ ever t $ d$ with bankruptcy. The
main issue in Lehman was whether the defendants, having f $ ught t $ enf $ rce the arbitrati $ n
sh$ uld be deemed t $ $ ccur $ n the date the drawee bank h $ n$ rs the check).
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
36/82
24
clause in their c $ ntract with the plaintiffs, w $ uld be b $ und by the arbitrat $ rs determinati $ n $ f
damages. Enf $ rcing the arbitrat $ rs award was neither against public p $ licy n $ r t$ the detriment
$ f $ ther credit $ rs since Lehman was n $ t in bankruptcy and the rights $ f $ ther credit $ rs were n $ t
implicated. See, e.g., Sch # les , 56 F.3d at 757-58 (argument that it may seem $ nly fair that
invest $ r be entitled t $ pr $ fits $ n trades made with his m $ ney was true as between invest $ r and
P$ nzi scheme $ perat $ r, but was n $ t true as between invest $ r and $ ther invest $ rs); In re
Taubman , 160 B.R. at 986.
The case that is anal $ g$ us t$ Pic$ wers situati $ n is n $ t Lehman but In re Hedged
Investments Ass # ciates , 84 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 1996). There, an invest $ r in an investment fund
that turned int $ a P$ nzi scheme attempted t $ defend against a trustees av $ idance claim f $ r
fictiti $ us pr $ fit. Like Pic $ wer, the invest $ r argued that under applicable law (in her case,
C$ l$ rad$ ), she w $ uld have had a claim f $ r her full expectancy damages and that theref $ re the
full am $ unt $ f the transfers had been f $ r value. The Tenth Circuit rejected her argument,
reas$ ning that as a matter $ f public p $ licy, a C $ l$ rad$ state c $ urt w $ uld n $ t permit an invest $ r in
a bankrupt P $ nzi scheme t $ enf $ rce her fraudulent c $ ntract with the defendant at the expense $ f $ ther invest $ rs. Since she had n $ enf $ rceable claim f $ r am $ unts bey $ nd her initial investment,
the debt $ r had n $ debt t $ her f $ r th$ se am $ unts and she had n $ t pr $ vided value f $ r th$ se
transfers. Id. at 1289. Whatever rights t $ expectancy damages an invest $ r the $ retically may
have as a fraud plaintiff, in $ ther w $ rds, d $ n$ t $ verc$ me the rule that payments t $ invest $ rs in a
P$ nzi scheme in excess $ f the am $ unts $ f their investments are av $ idable as fraudulent transfers.
D. The Net Equity Dispute is irrelevant t ( the Trustees claims and cann ( tbe determined in a m ( ti ( n t ( dismiss.
Pic$ wer als $ claims that he is entitled t $ the expectancy measure $ f damages under the
SIPA statute, and theref $ re t$ establish lack $ f fair c $ nsiderati $ n the Trustee must allege that the
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
37/82
25
transfers exceeded the value $ f securities reflected $ n the acc $ unts last BLMIS acc $ unt
statements. This is $ ne $ f several attempts by Pic $ wer t $ challenge, in the c $ ntext $ f this m $ ti$ n
t$ dismiss, the Trustees interpretati $ n $ f net equity as defined under Secti $ n 78 lll (11) $ f SIPA
in its determinati $ n $ f cust $ mer claims. See 15 U.S.C. 78 lll (11) (2009). The Net Equity
Dispute is irrelevant t $ Pic$ wers argument, and in any event cann $ t be determined in the
c$ ntext $ f this m $ ti$ n.
Like s $ me $ ther invest $ rs, Pic $ wer claims that each acc $ unts net equity f $ r purp $ ses
$ f the SIPA statute is the am $ unt sh $ wn $ n the last cust $ mer statement issued by BLMIS.
(MTD at 10, 51-52.) Because th $ se cust $ mer statements issued by BLMIS included fictiti $ us
pr $ fits and were entirely fraudulent, h $ wever, the Trustee is n $ t relying $ n the acc $ unt balances
appearing $ n the cust $ mer statements f $ r purp $ ses $ f claims determinati $ ns. Instead, the
Trustee is evaluating claims based $ n the am $ unts that a cust $ mer actually dep $ sited with
BLMIS, less the am $ unts that the cust $ mer withdrew fr $ m the acc $ unt, s $ metimes referred t $ as
the cash in/cash $ ut appr $ ach. (MTD at 52.)
The issue $ f net equity applies t $ the determinati $ n $ f all cust $ mer claims in this SIPA
liquidati $ n, as well as litigati $ ns br $ ught by the Trustee. Acc $ rdingly, it will be heard by the
C$ urt, after briefing by interested parties in acc $ rdance with this C $ urts September 10, 2009
Scheduling Order. ( See Mem. Dec. & Order Granting Trustees M $ t. t$ Dismiss, Sept. 10, 2009
[hereinafter Peskin Order].) As this C $ urt stated in its decisi $ n ad$ pting the Scheduling Order
and dismissing a c $ mplaint by an $ ther invest $ r, [w]ith m $ re than 15,000 claims filed in the
Mad$ ff pr $ ceeding and multi-billi $ ns $ f d$ llars at stake, the issue $ f h$ w the Trustee determines
claimants net equity f $ r distributi $ n purp $ ses is a central questi $ n t$ be determined in this
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
38/82
26
SIPA liquidati $ n. (Peskin Order at 2.) The C $ urts reas $ ning in that decisi $ n, dismissing an
invest $ rs c $ mplaint f $ r a declarati $ n $ f the sc $ pe $ f her claims, is equally applicable here:
The Scheduling M $ ti$ n will address the c $ ncerns $ f a variety $ f cust $ mers withdifferent acc $ unt hist $ ries and balances, including b $ th net winners and net
l$ sers, and will pr $ vide every $ ne inv $ lved with the benefits fr $ m the submissi $ n$ f a c $ mprehensive and c $ mplete rec $ rd $ n this issue. All $ wing Plaintiffs, wh $ represent $ nly $ ne gr $ up $ f cust $ merst $ pr $ ceed with the adversary pr $ ceedingt$ determine the Net Equity Issue that will apply t $ all cust $ mer claims will yieldan inc $ mplete rec $ rd that might result in piecemeal litigati $ n $ n this issue.M$ re$ ver, Plaintiffs will suffer n $ prejudice in having the Net Equity Issuedecided pursuant t $ the Scheduling M $ ti$ n while $ ther cust $ mers will suffer greatharm if Plaintiffs are permitted t $ pr $ ceed with $ ut their participati $ n.
( Id . at 12-13, as amended per the Errata Order dated Sept. 11, 2009.) M $ re$ ver, the precise
am$
unt$
f equity in the cust$
mer acc$
unts under whatever meth$
d is a heavily factual issue
that remains under investigati $ n and cann $ t be decided in the c $ ntext $ f a m $ ti$ n t$ dismiss.
See, e.g., Higazy v. Templet # n, 505 F.3d 161, 174 (2d Cir. 2007) (Where there is a dispute ab $ ut
the material facts, this questi $ n must be res $ lved by the fact finder.) (citati $ n $ mitted).
In any event, whatever remedies Pic $ wer may $ r may n $ t have under SIPA d $ n$ t answer
the questi $ n whether Pic $ wer pr $ vided fair c $ nsiderati $ n t$ BLMIS f $ r the transfers at issue.
The c $ ncept $ f fair c $ nsiderati $ n refers t $ the value received by the debt $ r in exchange f $ r the
transfer. The am $ unt $ f value given by an invest $ r is n $ t altered based $ n whether $ r n$ t a
br $ kerage firm is registered with SIPC, whether $ r n$ t a SIPA acti $ n is c $ mmenced, $ r whether
any $ r all $ f the invest $ rs investments are pr $ tected under SIPA $ r f $ r h$ w much, because n $ ne
$ f this affects the value that the invest $ r gave t $ the debt $ r in exchange f $ r the transfer. See,
e.g., 5 C # llier # n Bankruptcy 548.05(1)(b) (2009) (Because the ultimate issue is the impact $ f
the transfer $ n the debt $ rs estate, the c $ urt must thus determine whether the debt $ r, as $ pp$ sed
t$ s$ me $ ther entity, received such value.); Sch# les , 56 F.3d at 757-58 (a party is entitled t $
retain pr $ fit fr $ m a P $ nzi scheme $ nly if the payment $ f that pr $ fit, which reduced the net assets
-
8/14/2019 Picard Response Picower's MtoD
39/82
27
$ f the estate, was $ ffset by an equivalent value t $ the estate). The value that Pic $ wer gave t $