throbber
08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 1 of 37
`
`
`UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------X
`SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION
`:
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`‒ against ‒
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT
`
`:
`SECURITIES LLC,
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`:
`----------------------------------------------------------------X
`In re:
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`BERNARD L. MADOFF,
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Debtor.
`
`
`:
`----------------------------------------------------------------X
`IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the
`
`:
`Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff
`
`
`:
`Investment Securities LLC,
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`‒ against ‒
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`A & G GOLDMAN PARTNERSHIP; and
`:
`PAMELA GOLDMAN
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`:
`----------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`CAPITAL GROWTH COMPANY; DECISIONS,
`:
`INC.; FAVORITE FUNDS; JA PRIMARY
`:
`LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JA SPECIAL
`
`:
`LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JAB
`
`
`:
`PARTNERSHIP; JEMW PARTNERSHIP; JF
`:
`PARTNERSHIP; JFM INVESTMENT
`
`:
`COMPANIES; JLN PARTNERSHIP; JMP
`:
`LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JEFFRY M.
`
`:
`PICOWER SPECIAL COMPANY; JEFFRY M.
`:
`PICOWER, P.C.; THE PICOWER
`
`
`:
`FOUNDATION; THE PICOWER INSTITUTE
`:
`OF MEDICAL RESEARCH; THE TRUST F/B/O :
`
`
`
`Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (SMB)
`SIPA LIQUIDATION
`(Substantively Consolidated)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Adv. Pro. No. 14-02407 (SMB)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Adv. Pro. No. 14-02408 (SMB)
`
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 2 of 37
`
`:
`
`GABRIELLE H. PICOWER; BARBARA
`:
`PICOWER, individually and as Executor of the
`:
`Estate of Jeffry M. Picower, and as Trustee for the
`Picower Foundation and for the Trust f/b/o Gabriel :
`H. Picower,
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`‒ against ‒
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`A & G GOLDMAN PARTNERSHIP; and
`:
`PAMELA GOLDMAN
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`:
`----------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION ENJOINING
`PROSECUTION OF DEFENDANTS’ ACTION
`AGAINST THE PICOWER PARTIES
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`45 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10111
`
`David J. Sheehan, Esq.
`
`Deborah H. Renner, Esq.
`
`Tracy L. Cole, Esq.
`
`Keith R. Murphy, Esq.
`
`Amy Vanderwal, Esq.
`
`Ferve Ozturk, Esq.
`
`
`Of Counsel
`Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the
` Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation
` of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
` LLC and the Estate of Bernard L. Madoff
`
`SCHULTE ROTH ZABEL LLP
`919 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`
`William D. Zabel, Esq.
`
`Marcy Ressler Harris, Esq.
`
`Michael Kwon, Esq.
`
`Jennifer M. Opheim, Esq.
`
`
`Of Counsel
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 3 of 37
`
`
`
`Attorneys for the Picower Parties
`
`HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
`Two Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10016
`
`Joshua J. Angel, Esq.
`
`Hanh Huynh, Esq.
`
`
`Of Counsel
`
`
`- and-
`BEASLEY HAUSER KRAMER & GALARDI, P.A.
`505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1500
`West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
`
`James W. Beasley, Jr., Esq.
`
`Joseph G. Galardi, Esq.
`
`Andrew S. Kwan, Esq.
`
`
`Of Counsel
`
`
`- and-
`BLACKNER, STONE & ASSOCIATES
`123 Australian Avenue
`Palm Beach, Florida 33480
`
`Richard Lee Stone, Esq.
`Of Counsel
`
`
`
`Attorneys for A & G Goldman Partnership and Pamela Goldman
`
`STUART M. BERNSTEIN
`United States Bankruptcy Judge:
`
`In January 2011, Irving H. Picard, Esq. (“Trustee”), as trustee of the Securities Investor
`
`Protection Act (“SIPA”) liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
`
`(“BLMIS”), settled the estate’s claims against the Picower Parties.1 As part of the settlement, the
`
`
`
`The “Picower Parties” include Capital Growth Company; Decisions, Inc.; Favorite Funds; JA Primary
`1
`Limited Partnership; JA Special Limited Partnership; JAB Partnership; JEMW Partnership; JF Partnership; JFM
`Investment Companies; JLN Partnership; JMP Limited Partnership; Jeffry M. Picower Special Company; Jeffry M.
`Picower, P.C.; the Picower Foundation; the Picower Institute of Medical Research; the Trust F/B/O Gabrielle H.
`Picower; and Barbara Picower, individually, and as executor of the estate of Jeffry M. Picower, and as Trustee for
`the Picower Foundation and for the Trust F/B/O Gabriel H. Picower.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 4 of 37
`
`Court entered a permanent injunction in favor of the Picower Parties that barred creditors from
`
`asserting claims “duplicative or derivative of the claims brought by the Trustee, or which could
`
`have been brought by the Trustee against the Picower BLMIS Accounts or the Picower
`
`Releasees.” Since then, various former BLMIS customers have attempted, without success, to
`
`side step the restrictions imposed by the injunction and sue the Picower Parties to recover their
`
`lost investments.
`
`The current litigation involves the third such attempt by A & G Goldman Partnership and
`
`Pamela Goldman (together, the “Goldman Parties”) to sue the Picower Parties in the United
`
`States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Florida District Court”). They
`
`contend that Jeffry Picower was a “control person” of BLMIS under § 20(a) of the Securities
`
`Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and liable for BLMIS’ primary violations of the
`
`federal securities laws.
`
`The Trustee and the Picower Parties commenced the above-captioned adversary
`
`proceedings to enjoin the Florida litigation contending that it violates the Court’s permanent
`
`injunction and the automatic stay. The Picower Parties also seek to prevent the Goldman Parties
`
`from filing another complaint against them. For the reasons that follow, the applications for
`
`injunctive relief are granted, but the Picower Parties’ request to enjoin the Goldman Parties from
`
`filing further pleadings is denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The background to these proceedings has been recounted in A & G Goldman P’ship v.
`
`Picard (In re BLMIS), No. 12 Civ. 6109 (RJS), 2013 WL 5511027, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 5 of 37
`
`2013) (“Goldman I”) and Picard v. Marshall (In re BLMIS), 511 B.R. 375, 379-386 (Bankr.
`
`S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Goldman II”), aff’d, 531 B.R. 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The Court assumes
`
`familiarity with these decisions and limits the discussion to the facts necessary for the disposition
`
`of the pending applications.
`
`A.
`
`The Settlement
`
`As recounted in the cited decisions as well as many others, Bernard L. Madoff conducted
`
`the largest Ponzi scheme in history through BLMIS until its collapse and his arrest in December
`
`2008. The Trustee eventually brought approximately 1,000 adversary proceedings to avoid and
`
`recover the transfers from BLMIS to its customers. On May 12, 2009, the Trustee sued the
`
`Picower Parties primarily to avoid and recover $6.7 billion that the Picower Parties had
`
`withdrawn from their BLMIS accounts between December 1995 and the collapse of the Ponzi
`
`scheme, and subsequently discovered additional transfers that increased the total withdrawals to
`
`$7.2 billion, Goldman II, 511 B.R. at 379-80, of which at least $5 billion represented fictitious
`
`profits consisting of other people’s money. (Complaint, dated May 12, 2009 (“Trustee
`
`Complaint”) at ¶ 2 (Adv. Pro. No. 09-01197 ECF Doc. # 1).) 2 The Trustee Complaint asserted
`
`claims for turnover and preferences under the Bankruptcy Code, fraudulent transfers under New
`
`York and bankruptcy law and disallowance of any Picower Party’s claims. It alleged, among
`
`other things, that the Picower Parties knew or should have known that BLMIS was a Ponzi
`
`
`
`A copy of the Trustee Complaint is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Marcy Ressler Harris in
`2
`Support of the Picower Parties’ Application for Enforcement of the Permanent Injunction, dated Nov. 17, 2014
`(“Harris Declaration”) (Adv. Pro. No. 14-02408 ECF Doc. # 4).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 6 of 37
`
`scheme, and actively participated by giving directions to BLMIS to create fictitious trading
`
`records for their accounts. (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 4, 60, 61, 63(f).)
`
`The Trustee, the Picower Parties and the Government, which was negotiating with the
`
`Picower Parties regarding a potential civil forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C),
`
`eventually entered into a global settlement agreement. Under the settlement, the Picower Parties
`
`agreed to pay $5 billion to the BLMIS estate, corresponding to the amount of fictitious profits
`
`they received, (see Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Entry of an Order Pursuant to
`
`Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules 2002 and 9019 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Bankruptcy Procedure Approving an Agreement by and Between the Trustee and the Picower
`
`BLMIS Account Holders and Enjoining Certain Claims, dated Dec. 17, 2010, at 3 (Adv. Pro. No.
`
`09-01197 ECF Doc. # 25), and to forfeit $2.2 billion to the Government. Goldman II, 511 B.R.
`
`at 380. On January 13, 2011, the Court entered an order approving the settlement agreement
`
`between the Trustee and the Picower Parties (the “Settlement Agreement”) that included the
`
`following permanent injunction (the “Permanent Injunction”) in favor of the Picower Parties:
`
`[A]ny BLMIS customer or creditor of the BLMIS estate . . . or anyone whose
`claim in any way arises from or is related to BLMIS or the Madoff Ponzi scheme,
`is hereby permanently enjoined from asserting any claim against the Picower
`BLMIS Accounts or the Picower Releasees that is duplicative or derivative of the
`claims brought by the Trustee, or which could have been brought by the Trustee
`against the Picower BLMIS Accounts or the Picower Releasees . . . .
`
`(Order Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules 2002 and 9019 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Approving an Agreement by and Among the Trustee and
`
`the Picower BLMIS Account Holders and Issuing a Permanent Injunction, dated Jan. 13, 2011, at
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 7 of 37
`
`7 (Adv. Pro. No. 09-01197 ECF Doc. # 43.) The Trustee agreed in the Settlement Agreement3 to
`
`use his reasonable best efforts to oppose challenges to the scope, applicability, or enforceability
`
`of the Permanent Injunction. (Settlement Agreement at ¶ 7.) Finally, the Picower Parties had
`
`filed twenty-one claims against the SIPA estate, (see id., Attachment A), and they agreed to
`
`withdraw those claims. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
`
`B.
`
`The Challenge to the Permanent Injunction
`
`Prior to the settlement, former BLMIS customers (Fox and Marshall) filed putative class
`
`actions against the Picower Parties in the Florida District Court alleging Florida state law claims
`
`sounding in conversion, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and state RICO violations. See Fox v.
`
`Picard (In re BLMIS), 848 F. Supp. 2d 469, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Fox I”), aff’d, 740 F.3d 81
`
`(2d Cir. 2014) (“Marshall”). The Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding to enjoin the
`
`Fox/Marshall actions pending the completion of his settlement with the Picower Parties. The
`
`Court concluded prior to its approval of the settlement that the Florida actions violated the
`
`automatic stay and at least one stay order of the District Court. In addition, the Court further
`
`ruled that the Fox/Marshall actions posed an imminent threat to the BLMIS estate and that an
`
`extension of the stay was appropriate and necessary to “preserve the integrity of the SIPA
`
`proceedings and the Trustee’s settlement negotiations....” Picard v. Fox (In re BLMIS), 429 B.R.
`
`423, 436 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 848 F. Supp. 2d 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff’d, 740 F.3d 81
`
`(2d Cir. 2014). Finally, the Court stated at the hearing to approve the settlement that the
`
`
`
`3
`
`The Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Court’s order.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 8 of 37
`
`Permanent Injunction applied to Fox’s and Marshall’s putative class actions. (Transcript of Jan.
`
`13, 2011 Hearing at 41:8-14) (Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 ECF Doc. # 3815).)
`
`Fox and Marshall appealed the approval of the settlement and the issuance of the
`
`Permanent Injunction, and argued, inter alia, that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the
`
`Permanent Injunction. District Judge Koeltl, to whom the appeal was assigned, explained that
`
`the question hinged on whether the Fox/Marshall complaints alleged direct claims or claims that
`
`were derivative of the claims asserted against the Picower Parties by the Trustee. Fox I, 848
`
`F.Supp.2d at 478.
`
`The District Court first observed that the Fox/Marshall complaints made factual
`
`allegations which were virtually identical to those made by the Trustee in the Trustee Complaint
`
`and based on the same conduct by the Picower Parties—“involvement in the Madoff Ponzi
`
`scheme, and the transfer of billions of dollars in BLMIS-held customer funds to the Picower
`
`[Parties].” Id. at 479. Furthermore, the alleged wrongful acts harmed every BLMIS investor in
`
`the same way, and the claims were “general one[s]” and not claims seeking to recover injury
`
`inflicted by the Picower Parties directed toward particular BLMIS customers. Id. at 480 (quoting
`
`St. Paul Fire & Maine Ins. Co. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 884 F.2d 688, 701 (2d Cir. 1989)). Judge Koeltl
`
`rejected the argument that the Florida complaints alleged individualized tort claims rather than
`
`the bankruptcy claims alleged in the Trustee Complaint, stating that “this nominal difference
`
`does not amount to a substantive difference.” Id at 481. He concluded:
`
`Allowing the Florida Actions to go forward would carry real risks to the estate,
`implicating the viability of the current settlement and the possibility of future
`settlements, and providing an avenue for BLMIS customers who are displeased
`with the Net Equity Decision to undermine that decision by directly pursuing
`claims that are wholly derivative of claims already brought by the Trustee.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 9 of 37
`
`Id. at 490–91.
`
`
`
`Fox and Marshall appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the
`
`Fox/Marshall complaints were attempts to “plead around” the Permanent Injunction and the
`
`automatic stay. Marshall, 740 F.3d at 91–92. The Second Circuit explained that “derivative
`
`claims” are claims that arise from the secondary effect of a harm done to the debtor and seek
`
`relief from third parties that pushed the debtor into bankruptcy, id. at 89; accord Picard v.
`
`JPMorgan Chase & Co. (In re BLMIS), 721 F.3d 54, 70 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.
`
`2895 (2014); St. Paul Fire & Marine, 884 F.2d at 704, while a claim is “particularized” when the
`
`injury can be “directly traced to the [third party’s] conduct.” Marshall, 740 F.3d at 89 (quoting
`
`St. Paul Fire & Marine, 884 F.2d at 704). The Fox/Marshall complaints “allege nothing more
`
`than steps necessary to effect the Picower defendants’ fraudulent withdrawals of money from
`
`BLMIS, instead of ‘particularized’ conduct directed at BLMIS customers.” Id. at 84. They did
`
`not contain particularized claims because they “do not allege that the Picower defendants made
`
`any such misrepresentations to BLMIS customers.” Id. at 92. Quoting from District Judge
`
`Richard J. Sullivan’s decision in a case involving the Goldman Parties and discussed
`
`immediately below, the Second Circuit stated:
`
`The ... Complaints plead nothing more than that the Picower Defendants traded on
`their own BLMIS accounts, knowing that such “trades” were fraudulent, and then
`withdrew the “proceeds” of such falsified transactions from BLMIS. All the
`“book entries” and “fraudulent trading records” that the Complaints allege refer to
`nothing more than the fictitious records BLMIS made, for the Picower
`Defendants, to document these fictitious transactions. In other words, the
`Complaints plead nothing more than that the Picower Defendants fraudulently
`withdrew money from BLMIS.
`
`Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 10 of 37
`
`C.
`
`Goldman I
`
`While the Fox/Marshall litigation was wending its way through the courts in this Circuit,
`
`the Goldman Parties sought leave from this Court to file two putative class actions in Florida
`
`District Court. The proposed complaints alleged that the Picower Parties had received billions of
`
`dollars in transfers under circumstances that suggested they knew that BLMIS was engaged in
`
`fraud. They claimed that Picower was a “control person” with respect to BLMIS under § 20 of
`
`the Exchange Act, and participated with BLMIS in violations of section 10(b) of the Exchange
`
`Act and Rule 10b–5. After this Court held that the proposed complaint violated the Permanent
`
`Injunction and the automatic stay, SIPC v. BLMIS (In re BLMIS), 477 B.R. 351, 355-58 (Bankr.
`
`S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff’d, 2013 WL 5511027 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013), the Goldman Parties
`
`appealed.
`
`On appeal, District Judge Sullivan observed that the same act may give rise to derivative
`
`and direct claims, and claims under § 20(a) of the Exchange Act were direct. Goldman I, 2013
`
`WL 5511027, at *5–6. However, a plaintiff does not plead a § 20(a) claim simply by labeling it
`
`as such, and the Court must, instead, look to the substance of what is alleged. Id. at *6. Thus,
`
`although the adequacy of the proposed complaints was not before the District Court, “whether
`
`the Complaints plead a bona fide control person claim is relevant insofar as it affects whether
`
`Appellants have pled a non-derivative claim.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`The District Court then proceeded to examine the proposed complaints and concluded
`
`that they consisted of conclusory averments that did not allege bona fide securities fraud claims.
`
`Id. at *6-7. The Goldman Parties did not plead “any facts to support the allegation that the
`
`Picower Defendants controlled BLMIS beyond what was necessarily incident to directing trades
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 11 of 37
`
`in their own customer accounts,” and each “conclusory legal statement about the Picower
`
`Defendants’ control over BLMIS ... simply parrots the elements required to make out a control
`
`person claim.” Id. at *8. Furthermore, the proposed complaints did not claim that the Picower
`
`Parties directed BLMIS to make representations beyond what was necessary to document their
`
`withdrawals. Id. at *9. The District Court concluded:
`
`[I]t is not enough that securities fraud claims would be non-derivative of
`fraudulent conveyance claims and that Appellants call their claims securities
`fraud claims‒the Goldman Complaints must actually plead securities fraud
`claims. Beyond a few bare legal conclusions, the Complaints plead no such
`claims. All the Goldman Complaints plead is that the Picower Defendants
`directed trades in their own BLMIS accounts and did so knowing that no such
`trades were in fact taking place—in other words, that the Picower Defendants
`fraudulently withdrew money from BLMIS.
`
`Id. at *10 (emphases in original).
`
`D.
`
`Goldman II
`
`Three months after the issuance of the decision in Goldman I, the Goldman Parties filed
`
`an action in the Florida District Court seeking a declaration that neither the Permanent Injunction
`
`nor the automatic stay barred their new complaint against the Picower Parties which again
`
`alleged a violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Goldman II, 511 B.R. at 386. The new
`
`complaint alleged, in substance, that the Picower Parties “were aware of the Ponzi scheme, were
`
`able to cause BLMIS to make fraudulent entries in their own accounts that allowed them to steal
`
`the funds belonging to other customers, and knew and caused BLMIS to make
`
`misrepresentations to the other customers in the account statements and other financial
`
`information that BLMIS sent to them.” Id. at 391. The Trustee commenced another suit to
`
`enjoin the new action again arguing that the asserted claims were derivative of the BLMIS
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 12 of 37
`
`estate’s claims and barred by the Permanent Injunction and the automatic stay.4 The Picower
`
`Parties intervened seeking the same relief as the Trustee.
`
`Addressing the complaints filed or proposed by both the Goldman Parties and the
`
`Fox/Marshall parties, the Court granted the injunction concluding that the new pleadings violated
`
`the Permanent Injunction. The Court observed that “[a]ll the Courts that have considered the
`
`issue have concluded that regardless of the label the plaintiffs choose to attach to their claims, a
`
`claim based on the Picower Defendants’ fraudulent withdrawals and fraudulent entries in their
`
`accounts, without any particularized allegations that the Picower Defendants directly participated
`
`in any misrepresentation to the customers, is derivative of the Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance
`
`claims against the Picower Defendants.” Id. at 390. The new complaint attempted to cure the
`
`deficiencies in the previous complaint by “averring that the [Picower Parties’] fraudulent
`
`withdrawals and fictitious entries in their own accounts had the effect of causing BLMIS to send
`
`false financial statements to other customers.” Id. at 392-93. Aside from these conclusory
`
`statements, the new Goldman complaint did not allege that the Picower defendants “directed or
`
`were at all involved in the creation or dissemination of these statements to other BLMIS
`
`customers,” Goldman I, 2013 WL 5511027, at *8, or include particularized allegations that
`
`Picower was an officer of BLMIS, or “that Picower Defendants did anything besides
`
`fraudulently withdraw money from BLMIS and cause BLMIS to make phony entries in the
`
`records of their accounts.” Goldman II, 511 B.R. at 393.
`
`
`
`In addition, the Fox/Marshall plaintiffs had moved to reopen their Florida action and for leave to file a
`4
`second amended complaint. The Trustee also sought to enjoin the prosecution of that action.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 13 of 37
`
`E.
`
`Fox II
`
`The Goldman Parties did not ultimately pursue an appeal of this Court’s Goldman II
`
`decision,5 but Fox/Marshall did. District Judge Koeltl, who had also decided the prior
`
`Fox/Marshall appeal, affirmed. Like the Goldman Parties’ complaints, Fox/Marshall’s new
`
`complaint included a claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Fox v. Picard (In re
`
`BLMIS), 531 B.R. 345, 349 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Fox II”). The Fox/Marshall section 20(a)
`
`claim alleged, inter alia, that the Picower Parties “controlled BLMIS and participated in
`
`convincing additional customers to invest in BLMIS by inducing BLMIS’s misleading
`
`statements to customers.” Id. at 352. Fox/Marshall sought to differentiate its allegations from
`
`the Goldman Parties’ initial control person allegations rejected in Goldman I by asserting that
`
`their section 20(a) claims involved direct injuries based on their own reliance on fraudulent
`
`statements and misrepresentations made to them. Id.
`
`The District Court reviewed the new complaint under the criteria discussed by the
`
`District Court in Goldman I, and agreed that “the appellants have not made particularized
`
`allegations about any misrepresentations made by the Picower parties or direct involvement of
`
`the Picower parties in misrepresentations by Madoff.” Id. The Fox/Marshall complaint did not
`
`point to any specific misrepresentations, and the allegations regarding “inflated account values,”
`
`the only misrepresentations it discussed, were entirely conclusory. Id. In addition, the
`
`allegations in the new Fox/Marshall complaint contained derivative allegations similar to those
`
`rejected in Goldman I, and included actions taken by the Picower Parties regarding their own
`
`
`
`The Goldman Parties’ had filed a notice of appeal but stipulated to its dismissal. (See Harris Declaration,
`5
`Exhibit 5.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 14 of 37
`
`BLMIS accounts, particularized allegations of BLMIS’ fraud that did not include the Picower
`
`Parties, and conclusory allegations of control person liability with no particularized support. Id.
`
`The District Court concluded:
`
`[T]he appellants have merely repackaged the same facts underlying the Trustee’s
`claims without any new particularized injuries of the appellants that are directly
`traceable to the Picower defendants. Thus, all of the claims in the New Fox
`Complaint “impermissibly attempt to “plead around” the bankruptcy court’s
`injunction barring all “derivative claims.”
`
`Id. at 354 (quoting Marshall, 740 F.3d at 96).
`
`F.
`
`Goldman III
`
`Against this history, the Goldman Parties filed their current class action complaint, dated
`
`August 28, 2014 (the “Complaint”), in the Florida District Court.6 The Complaint contains many
`
`of the same conclusory allegations in the Goldman II complaint (the “Prior Complaint”).7 For
`
`example, the Prior Complaint alleged that Picower controlled BLMIS based on (i) his close
`
`business and social relationship with Madoff, (ii) his knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, (iii)
`
`causing BLMIS to disseminate false and misleading financial information to its customers, (iv)
`
`directing the recording of phony transactions, including backdated trades, in his own accounts,
`
`and (v) his ability to obtain an improper $6 billion margin loan. (Prior Complaint at ¶¶ 63-77.)
`
`This Court held that those allegations were conclusory and based on activity in the Picower
`
`Parties’ own accounts. Goldman II, 511 B.R. at 391-93. Without the allegations regarding the
`
`
`
`6
`
`A copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Harris Declaration.
`
`The Prior Complaint is attached to the Declaration of Keith R. Murphy in Support of Application for
`7
`Enforcement of the Permanent Injunction and Automatic Stay, dated Nov. 17, 2014 (“Murphy Declaration”) (Adv.
`Pro. No. 14-02407 ECF Doc. # 4) as Exhibit L.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 15 of 37
`
`Picower Parties’ fraudulent withdrawals, “there [was] nothing left,” thus the alleged injuries
`
`were “inseparable” from the Trustee’s already settled fraudulent transfer claims. Id. at 393
`
`(quoting Marshall, 740 F.3d at 92). Likewise, the Complaint includes conclusory allegations
`
`regarding Picower’s8 and Madoff’s close relationship (Complaint at ¶¶ 5, 64, 117), Picower’s
`
`knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, (id. at ¶¶ 64, 111), his ability to cause BLMIS to send false and
`
`misleading financial information to its customers, (e.g., id. at ¶¶ 1, 7, 10, 65, 74, 91-96), booking
`
`phony, back-dated transactions in his own accounts, (id. at ¶¶ 83-86), and the $6 billion margin
`
`loan for Defendant Decisions Incorporated stolen from the accounts of other BLMIS customers.9
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 88-90.) These allegations suffer from the same deficiencies noted in Goldman II.
`
`The Goldman Parties argue that the Complaint should nevertheless be spared the same
`
`fate as their prior pleadings based on the “Propping Up” and “Counterparty” Allegations. (See
`
`Defendants’ Objection to Application for Enforcement of Permanent Injunction and Automatic
`
`Stay, dated Dec. 15, 2014 at 6 (“Goldman Memo”) (Adv. Pro. No. 14-02407 ECF Doc. # 11).)
`
`The source of these new allegations appears to be “criminal proceedings against . . . other
`
`BLMIS employees, including without limitation the sworn testimony of Enrica Cotellessa-Pitz,
`
`Frank DiPascali, Jr., and Annette Bongiorno in the criminal action, United States v. Bonventre,
`
`et al., 10-cr-228(LTS) (S.D.N.Y.),” as this is the only new source of information referred to in
`
`
`
`The Complaint defines “Picower” as Jeffry Picower and affiliated defendants (Complaint at ¶ 1), and also
`8
`alleges that the entity defendants were dominated, controlled and used as a mere instrumentality of Picower. (Id. at
`¶ 42.) In this opinion, the Court will sometimes use “Picower” synonymously with the previously defined “Picower
`Parties.”
`
`Exhibit 7 annexed to the Harris Declaration includes a lengthy chart comparing the allegations in the
`9
`Complaint with the allegations in the Prior Complaint and the Trustee Complaint.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`08-01789-smb Doc 12671 Filed 02/17/16 Entered 02/17/16 12:50:45 Main Document
` Pg 16 of 37
`
`the preamble to the Complaint.10 (Compare Complaint, at pp. 1-2 with Prior Complaint, at 1-2.)
`
`1.
`
`Propping Up Allegations
`
`According to the Complaint, Picower “propped up” the Ponzi scheme by making two
`
`loans to BLMIS, aggregating $200 million, and but for these loans, BLMIS would have been
`
`unable to pay off redeeming investors and the Ponzi scheme would have collapsed. (Complaint
`
`at ¶ 67.) There was no formal documentation pertaining to either loan, and it was essential to
`
`keep them secret because the Financial Institution Regulatory Authority (FINRA) would have
`
`had to approve the loans, and Picower would have had to sign agreements subordinating the
`
`loans to certain other liabilities of BLMIS. (Id. at ¶¶ 71-72.)
`
` The first loan was made in 1992 or 1993. Avellino & Bienes, a BLMIS feeder fund, had
`
`failed and was under SEC investigation. BLMIS needed cash to pay back Avellino’s investors
`
`
`
`As a consequence, the Picower Parties cited to portions of their testimony to show that the Propping Up and
`10
`Counterparty Allegations actually relate to transactions in the Picower Parties’ own accounts and/or that Madoff
`unilaterally inserted Picower’s name as a counterparty. The Goldman Parties objected contending that I am limited
`to the allegations in the Complaint as I would be on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure. (Goldman Memo at 31.)
`The Trustee and the Picower Parties are not seeking to dismiss the Complaint; they are seeking to enforce
`the Permanent Injunction and the automatic stay, and the Second Circuit has instructed me to inquire into the factual
`origins of the injury and the legal claims asserted in the Complaint. Marshall, 740 F.3d at 89. Although this does
`not mean that I should conduct a trial on the “control person” allegations to decide whether the Goldman Parties
`may proceed to trial on their “control person” claim in Florida, the inquiry identified by the Second Circuit
`nevertheless implies that I may consider facts outside the pleading in appropriate circumstances to determine the
`bona fides of the “control person” claim. For example, if the Goldman Parties had attributed a statement of fact to a
`specific witness at the criminal trial, I would not have to blindly accept their characterization of that testimony and
`could review the transcript to determine whether the witness actually said what the Goldman Parties’ claim he or she
`said. Rieger v. Drabinksy (In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig.), 151 F. Supp. 2d 371, 405–06 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
`(“[A] court need not feel constrained to accept as truth . . . pleadings . . . that are contradicted either by statements i

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket