All the News That's Fit to Ignore
by Matthew Callan on Mar 25, 2011 10:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintYesterday, the Daily News reported that a lawyer for the Bernie Madoff victims demanded the resignation of Irving Picard. The lawyer, Helen Davis Chaitman, said the trustee "has been dishonest with the court and should step aside as trustee because nobody can trust anything he says." The News story also revealed that Picard has been questioned by Congresspersons on a number of different issues, from his connections to Securities and Exchange Commission that may constitute a conflict of interest, to his unwillingness to provide the depositions on which he's built his lawsuit.
You can take these accusations with as much salt as you want. After all, the News has clearly been on the Wilpons' side since the whole affair began, due in part (I would presume) from the two parties' connection to each other via SNY.
However, I do find it curious that when this story broke on Thursday, it fell with a thud. Every single Picard accusation has been pored over relentlessly by the press, treated with the utmost seriousness and virtually no skepticism. The Wilpons' responses to these accusations have been more or less dismissed. Some reporters said the Mets owners would be better off keeping their mouths shut.
Now, Picard is being called on to resign by those for whom he purports to be fighting--500 such people, in fact, which is how many Madoff clients Chaitman represents. I would think this would be big news. As yet, I've heard nothing but silence from everyone outside the Daily News. None of the non-News beat writers have yet to tweet or blog about the story, treating us instead to blow-by-blow accounts of Jay Horowitz's athletic endeavors.
This morning, most of the Mets news centers around a Times story that claims the Mets have suffered significant financial losses in the last few years--as much as $50 million in 2010 alone. A big story, definitely, one I've heard and seen discussed in multiple media. But the Picard-must-resign story remains curiously unexplored by anyone outside the News.
This gives weight to my conspiracy theory (put forward earlier this week) that the harsh treatment the Wilpons have received from the press in re: Madoff has little to do with justice or financial malfeasance and more to do with raking them over the coals for the team's performance. Because otherwise, a call for Picard's resignation would have to be big news. Even if you think the News is totally in the tank for the Wilpons, it's a story that at least deserves investigation and comment, if only to dismiss it. Doesn't it? Or am I the only nut who thinks so?
I guess it's just me. Carry on as you were, sports press.
101 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For those of us outside NYC,
how does the local press line up on this? If the Daily News is pro-Wilpon, are the New York Post, NYT and Newsday anti- or merely negative-news-makes-a-better-headline?
the last one
like every other story surrounding the mets, the press is covering the angle that they know will play to the disenchanted, blood-thirsty plurality of mets fans who ironically don’t care enough about the team to seek out/understand the facts.
so does that mets fan want to hear a defense of the wilpons? no. does it matter that the defense is well-founded and based on sound judgment? hell no. instead he wants to see them lambasted with little or no regard to accuracy, fairness or any semblance of reason.
by Rob Castellano on Mar 25, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I have come to doubt everything in the press
Pro-Wilpon, Anti-Wilpon, trade rumors, poltical news, everything. I don’t trust it. Everyone has an angle and they write stories that go along with their narrative. From what I’ve heard, Picard has done an incredible job in recovering millions of dollars for Madoff victims. Now we hear that he is dishonest. Who are we to trust? We’re dealing with bankers and lawyers here. Can we trust anyone? I know I sound like an old man who screams “they’re all a bunch of crooks” while watching Spice channel on his illegal cable box, but I’m fatigued by all of this. I just want to watch baseball.
I'm with you
in that I’m tired of this whole story.
I have no particular knowledge of or education in business or high finance or law. None of what’s reported on Madoff and the Wilpons and their finances is anything that I can truly begin to comprehend.
I do love baseball and am anxiously awaiting the start of the regular season. All this other stuff is, to borrow a popular cliche, above my pay grade. Just let me know who wins when it’s over.
As we all should well know,
The news business is mostly not about selling news to you, it’s about selling you to advertisers. Nevertheless, somehow, a lot of journalists and editors have embraced the notion that journalism is a public trust, and they do really feel their integrity is on the line in their reporting. It’s on you to decide whom you can trust and whom you can’t – as ever, in life, in everything.
lawyers
Every single thing that’s been printed is basically lawyers posturing. The actual decision will come down after a careful presentation of the facts and an analysis of the case by someone smarter, and more informed, than just about any one that’s said anything about this anywhere. And that judge doesn’t actually know what the decision is going to be yet, so for anybody to presume to know is really just presenting a barely educated guess.
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
Burt Lifland
isn’t actually all that smart. Not that he’s dumb. But he is the decider. if it gets to a trial and ultimate decision, which I doubt.
Amazin Avenue
Come for the journalistic integrity, stay for the MS Paintz. Thanks for the info, I had heard nothing about this. Interesting stuff.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Mar 25, 2011 10:44 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Soon, they'll be accusing us of being pro-Wilpons and as biased as the Daily News.
In lobby for: Jaime Cevallos, Zack Lutz, orange unis and Rickroll as the 7th inning song.
The Unwritten Rules of AA
Yup
I come to AA for all of my news needs.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Mar 25, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Along the lines (and shameless self-promotion, to boot)
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!? Right here: http://myentireteam.wordpress.com/
Hmm
I came away with a different spin than Matthew did from that Daily News article.
The lawyer, Helen Davis Chaitman, said the trustee “has been dishonest with the court and should step aside as trustee because nobody can trust anything he says.”
This isn’t because the lawyer thinks Picard is over-reaching or whatever, but because he didn’t clawback enough money from other investors! From the WSJ bit:
The firm on Wednesday alleged the trustee deliberately concealed information about Levy’s “criminal activities in order to improperly obtain the court’s approval for a sweetheart deal for the Levy heirs.”
I guess if anything, the lawyer calling for Picard’s resignation would like more money out of the Wilpons, not less.
Of course she would
Frankly, Picard has done a pretty good job overall. These creditors are not that sympathetic to me. They are going to get almost 50 cents on the dollar already. That’s far better than people do in a lot of chapter 7s or 11s. Some of them i am sure are sypathetic on a acse by case basis. But some were putting money in just hoping whatever it was bernie was doing would make them fat returns. nothing wrong with that, although there were articles questioning his methods over the years (one in Barron’s). Some must have assumed it was to good to legally be true. 12% or whatever a year without fail, never losing, rarely even having a down month? They didn’t care. Sure, plenty wouldn’t have known or been savvy enough and just felt hey, the guy’s good. Even still, some people must know that losing half your money (and that’s about the worst of it now, at least based on their principal investment and not what they thought they’d made with madoff) is quite possible in the market. The entire stock market lost half its worth twice in the last decade, afterall.
Yes, they themselves had been working a sweetheart deal for a long time.
They deserve their day in court, but given the ferocity with which he’s going after the Wilpons, I’d tend to assume he made the deal he could get with regard to these Levy funds. Maybe he has reason to play favorites, who knows, but that would be malfeasance, right, and unless there’s some specific evidence of that I’m kind of persuaded by the old saw that both sides hating you is some sort of demonstration of fairness.
Picard's malfeasance
In order to obtain court approval for a settlement, Picard hid the facts that Levy laundered at least $100 billion with or for Madoff and received an unpaid $2 billion loan from him. Lawyers have been disbarred and people imprisoned (Martha Stewart) for much less.
by Peter Moskowitz on Mar 28, 2011 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
You would be guessing wrong
Chaitman is actually a strong supporter of the Wilpons, correctly recognizing how unfairly they’ve been persecuted by Picard:
“Picard’s persecution of Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz is vicious and unjustified based on the allegations he has made against them,” says Helen Davis Chaitman, an attorney who represents some 500 less-visible Madoff victims, and was a victim herself. “From his own complaint, it appears that Picard has no evidence that Wilpon and Katz knew of the fraud. Picard simply alleges that they ‘should have known’ of the fraud.”
Whoa
I guess i guessed wrong as well. Wait, does she represent people who made profits from madoff and wants the lost “profits” also to be included as allowable claims?
Anyway, i’m an ass for assuming.
For the fun of it I went back and checked. Since the victims are getting back half their capital they are doing as well as someone who put money in the S&P 500 On March 24, 2000 and cashed out either in October 10, 2002, March 12, 2003, or, yikes, in March, 2008.
Ponzi scheme run by a massive fraudster or index investing via the S&P 500? eh, what’s the difference. :)
OK, that’s some cherry-picked dates? Why does March and October keep coming up, both for peaks and valleys?
How about this. The market, today, March 25, 2011, is 15% lower than its high on March 24, 2000. Down 15% in 11 years, nominally, not including inflation (or dividends either, but ia ssume non-core headline inflation outpaced the dividends).
The market is no higher today than it was on March 18, 1999. Again with March? ya know, ya may want to get a month ahead of the sell in may, go away crowd. maybe folks are selling because they need to pay for a ticket to a Yankees or Mets game.
Not sure exactly who she represents ...
.. . but she reportedly is representing 500 Madoff “victims.”
Could be just “net winners” who nevertheless had a paper loss or she could also be representing “net losers” as well. I think the latter is the case because they too would stand to do better under the alternate SIPC reimbursement formulas she is fighting for.
That fact that she is representing so many of Madoff’s former clients is significant regardless of who they are.
I'm pretty sure
irving is doing what he thinks is net best for overall recovery for the estate.
What he thinks is best
… may be unethical and not necessarily the best. Especially if a lawyer for hundreds of “victims” is calling foul and there appears to be a strong conflict of interest within the SEC who Picard is essentially representing.
I think Picard is overreaching in many cases (while supposedly letting some like Levy off the hook) and that could delay or even reduce reimbursement for true Madoff victims. By the time many cases get litigated in court, some of the Madoff victims may be dead.
True
may be. But I think he is likely trying to maximize recovery while limiting expense, overall (perhaps enhancing his fees and commission to a degree, but that is roughly alligned with recovery). I’m sure Chaitman’s clients have some beefs or believe they do, but they are not all of the claimants. I’ve seen chapter 7s drag out much longer than this one has thus far, though.
Agree that he is trying to maximize returns
…but he is doing it in an unethical and over-aggressive way that may be counter-productive.
This may go on for 5 years or more. Especially with the big banks fighting him. Supposedly some of Madoff’s real victims are the elderly and sick. They will be dead by the time this is over.
In the meantime, Picard alone will have made tens of millions in legal fees. It’s the case of a lifetime for him to get rich.
THis case
has not dragged on all that long. That there are old victims is sad, but how exactly do you propose that somehow justice be done immediately? It’s an adversarial system. It may be that it is unethical or legal extortion to go after the Wilpons, but their lawyers have the opportunity to argue that. if he is taking too long, the creditors can argue that or the court can raise that issue sua sponte. The money to be returned to victims won’t appear magically on a plate. I’m not suggesting irving is beyond reproach or the system is, or that his interest is not also to maximize his own rewards. The system is in fact supposedly designed to incentivize him to recover as much as he can.
Does Chaitman represent clawback creditors? If so, in that way her interest is aligned with the Wilpons. Also, she plans to sue or has sued the SEC, right?
Ms. Chaitman has her own client’s interests to represent, which include her own, as she was also a Madoff victim. So i take what she says with a grain of salt just like whatever Picard says, the Wilpons, Judge Lifland, etc.
Picard has been a chapter 7 trustee for years and had to do many no-assets cases to get to where he is. His commissions will be subject to court review, inteested party objections, appeal possibly. he’s already collected 50 cents on the dollar if i’m not mistaken. So he isn’t doing it out of altruism, but someone was going to earn a big payday on this because that’s just the way the system is.
If Picard wasn't overreaching so much ...
he might have gotten a lot of money back sooner to be distributed to the real victims. For example, I would be surprised if the Wilpons weren’t willing to settle for roughly 200 million. Which means that money would be in that pot to go to the victims by sometime this year. But because Picard is overreaching, in a huge way, they are unlikely to see a penny of the Wilpons money for possibly 3-4 years, and it may be only marginally more than 200 million, if at all.
As for Chaitman, again, I don’t know who she represents but it’s supposedly 500 of Madoff’s investors. I’m guessing she represents a mix of “net losers” and “net winners.” Of course her interest is aligned with the Wilpons. That doesn’t mean she isn’t right. I believe she is suing a lot of parties aligned with Picard. She also testified before congress who is looking into Picard and the SEC.
Picard has every incentive to make this drag on for years as the longer it goes on, the richer he will get. I’m not saying his billing is shady or anything, just that his motives have to be questioned.
V
you know a lot more about this than I do. I haven’t followed it all that closely. Why would Chaitman and her clients NOT want to maximize the recovery from a suit against the Wilpons?
And how is Picard essentially representing the SEC?
Because maybe they want things done fairly?
You’d have to ask Chaitman. Just know that she is clearly on the Wilpons side.
Maybe she knows that Picard is overreaching so he is wasting his time going after the Wilpons while at the same time denying her clients and other Madoff victims reimbursements under previous “net equity” guidelines which Picard has chosen to ignore. And, as the article states, he appears to have let Levy off the hook? Why?
Picard, the SEC, SIPC, and to a lesser extent, the bankruptcy judge, all have the same goals at this point. Picard is not actually doing the SEC’s bidding, but their interests are the same. And to the extent that Picard gets money back, the SEC will look less culpable. (“Oh look, but we got all this money back for the victims so our negligence didn’t really harm folks.”)
I don't like Picard and
how he overreached in his lawsuit and leaked information to the New York Times. He lied in the lawsuit about the Stamos deposition. He has been unethical. In the meantime, the Wilpons have been unfairly persecuted and tarnished. And it’s impacted the team I root for.
So I guess my “goals” and interests are fairness, justice, and the well-being of the Mets.
And unless fans
are confident Picard’s lawsuit will result in totally new ownership (not just a sale of a minority portion) and that the new ownership will be better than the Wilpons, then they should be against Picard as well. Because short of that, his overreaching lawsuit has only served to make things more difficult for the Mets which could possibly impact the product on the field negatively.
I'll let the court decide
if Picard is overreaching. My mets fandom won’t change how i view the suit one way or the other. I am not even that big of an enemy of the Wilpons. I don’t care if they win or lose, keep the Mets, lose the Mets, whatever. Right now i’m just glad Sandy is in charge, drinking the koolaid. If Selig did that to get some adult supervision of the team, like Stern did I believe with Walsh and Dolan and the Knicks, great.
Bankruptcy is bellum omnia contre omnes. Ugly, nasty business. Why the hell didnt I become a florist?
You underestimate Alderson
How is he drinking the koolaid? And I think Alderson became GM because that is what he wanted; he didn’t need to be coaxed into taking the job by Selig and Selig didn’t force him on the Mets.
As for the court, didn’t you say Lifland was dumb? If so, why would you have faith in the court? Or are you so inured as a Mets fan to putting your faith in dumb people (Philips and Omar) that you just don’t care, lol? Since Lifland seems to be just agreeing with everything Picard says, I have more faith in an appeals court where I think this will end up.
Sorry
I meant I’m drinking the Alderson koolaid. I don’t really think it’s koolaid. I was trying to be self-deprecating by saying that. I think he’s very sharp and will do a great job.
Hmm
I also tried to make clear i didn’t think Burton Lifland was dumb. I said he’s not all that smart. He’s smart enough i suppose. Run of the mill for a bankruptcy judge. I merely am saying it’s up to the court system and i don’t have much of a dog in the fight personally. If Lifland makes legal mistakes, the appellate system will get a crack at it. He’s been overturned before.
So
her clients or some of them and maybe she too may have separate interests from some of the other non-net equity claimants? Are the Wilpons net equity claimants as well? The Wilpns are people from whom a clawback is sought. Are some of her clients poeple from whom a clawback is sought? Is the trustee seeking a clawback from Chaitman herself?
They want things done fairly? Certainly, they want fairness from their persepctive. They want fairmness with respect to the Wilpons qua because they want justice or fairness for its own sake? I suppose fairness and justice are something we’d like to see universally for the most part, but these people have huge financial stakes involved, relatively for each of them in their own regard, I’d imagine.
Chaitman's clients may be BOTH
“net winners” and “net losers” as both would stand to gain by her fight to have SIPC reimbursement formulas changed.
I know the Wilpons are “net winners” but I have no idea what Chaitman’s status is or that of her 500 clients. It would be just speculation to say anything about this.
And, yes, whether they are net winners or net loses, of course everyone has huge (for them) financial stakes involved. Who said otherwise?
Just suggesting
she may have motives, as brooklynlou points out below, to support the Wilpns that are not simply for justice for its own sake or to make sure Fred is treated fairly.
BTW, welcome to AA.
FYI
wobatus, vcarver is a steady poster on Metsblog that pretty much only posts when Madoff and the Wilpon’s are discussed and always is pro-Wilpon. If you see him post in a game thread during the season or discuss a trade, I’d be very surprised.
Well
I saw that he just joined AA today. I was gonna say look forward to your posts on other issues but welcoming him was perhaps snarky enough. :) But seriously, welcome to AA to him. All opinions welcome under the bright blue sky, subject to the moderators and decorum. :)
You are mistaken ...
I am one of the oldest posters at Metsblog and have posted on dozens of topics there for at least 3-4 years. In those 3-4 years I have rarely posted in game threads or talked about trades … though I have talked about trades much more than I have posted in game threads. I find the “lets trade Ike and Mejia for Pujols” type of talk not my cup of tea. Never has been. So my posting habits are nothing new.
As for discussing real trades — you know, the type that actually happen — there probably hasn’t been a single significant trade the Mets made in the last 5 years that I haven’t commented on at Metsblog, whether it is to applaud it or pan it. .
As for defending the Wilpons, yes, I am one of the staunchest defenders of the Wilpons on Metsblog, especially in regards to the Madoff lawsuit.
Of course she has motives to support them
I said already at 9:09 this morning (see below) that money is the motivation.It is for Picard, Chaitman, the Wilpons — everyone involved i this mess. That doesn’t mean the pursuit of money and the pursuit of fairness and justice are mutually exclusive.
somehow
I suspect her tender concerns for the Wilpons is somewhat colored by her view of her own situation and not for universal fairness. But i’m sure in general she’d like to see fairness. Understanding that fairness is different from different people’s perspectives or worldview or philsophy even if they have no direct interest in an issue.
I'm sure it is
As I said, they have common interests. But she is also someone who works pro bono a lot and I tend to associate those people with a higher degree of altruistic motives.
Wait, she is a lawyer...
they are neither interested in justice or fairness. All lawyers want to do is win and get paid.
Liars for hire sums them up beautifully.
by ScottfromPeekskill on Mar 25, 2011 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
See my post below
From NY TImes 2009
Ms. Chaitman disapproves of the way Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee overseeing the claims process, is calculating investor losses — on the basis of “net equity,” or simply the difference between the total amount invested in the fund and the total withdrawn before it collapsed.
Ms. Chaitman, who represents more than 100 others in a lawsuit against Mr. Picard, is adamant that they should be reimbursed for the total value of their accounts with Mr. Madoff, even if their withdrawals exceeded their deposits and even though the balances reflected on their statements were based on fake trades.
The people Chaitman represents were the victims (small v) that MADE money from the scam. She’s been after Picard for years and going after congress to STOP (see her on youtube) claw-backs. Her victims are the ones beiong clawed from.
Not necessarily
You don’t know that. Some of her clients may be the net losers in Madoff as they would stand to gain by her fight to have SIPC formulas changed.
Another Chaitman quote
“This is amazing,” Chaitman said. “It certainly proves how foolish Picard’s allegations are (that Wilpon and Katz) knew or should’ve known, if the general counsel of the SEC didn’t know.”
Clearly she is on the Wilpons’ side.
The whole thing is ridiculously complicated as to motivations
Because the group of Madoff “investors” as a whole were more or less a coherent social group, no? Who knows what relationship complications underlie it all.
Don't think that is accurate
By “coherent social group” do you mean that these people all knew each other, even if just superficially? And that there is some underlying motivation because of this that weakens their position? I don’t get what you’re aiming at.
Even if lots of these investors did know each other socially, I would bet the vast majority of them didn’t.
No, I don't mean they all knew each other directly
But it was a collection of people primarily referred by others of those people, so who knows what sort of relationships are complicating it all?
Callan is spot on
Couldn’t agree with Matthew more. Especially this part:
“…the harsh treatment the Wilpons have received from the press in re: Madoff has little to do with justice or financial malfeasance and more to do with raking them over the coals for the team’s performance.”
It’s not just the press doing this, but many fans. I suspect if the Mets had been in the playoffs in 2010, the negativity surrounding this issue would be about one-third the amount it is now. And that includes the vicious knee-jerk negativity of the national media as well.
Clearly the hundreds of millions of dollars he made and spent during his time with Mad Dog Madoff have no bearing on this at all
no bearing whatsoever
by ScottfromPeekskill on Mar 25, 2011 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
It's more about the piling on
than the fact that the Wilpons made money off of Madoff, especially since there is no supporting evidence that the Wilpons “knew or should have known.”
"Or am I the only nut who thinks so? I guess it's just me."
Who knew you were a Jewish mother.
As I understand it
Picard can win his lawsuit against the Wilpon’s without proving that they “should have known.” So why was that even put in the complaint?
How one person “should have known” while the very regulatory body charged with that task didn’t “know” is beyond me, not to mention all the money managers, banks ect who’s very purpose for existing didn’t “know.”
It is also unfair that accounts the Wilpon’s had that lost money aren’t subtracted from their net gainers and it goes against the very idea of justice to at once smear someone with “evidence” and at the same time prevent them from seeing this so called “evidence.” Evidence determined by one and only one person to begin with, the person filing the lawsuit.
Picard is simply trying to ingratiate himself to the rich and powerful after which he’ll file a lawsuit against the SEC which we’ll all have to pay for in one form or another, afterwhich he’ll write a book, decide weather he wants Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp to portray him in the movie and soak up the accolades of all the people he has “made whole again” by smearing, blackmailing and threatning anyone who doesn’t roll over.
If you think Picard could give a rat’s * about a regular person who lost money in the financial meltdown I’ve got a left handed starting pitcher you might be interested in.
The "should have known" part is a huge part of Picard's lawsuit
If he can’t prove “should have known” then he will only get back 300 million or less.
If he can prove “should have known” then he can get an additional 700 million.
From what I’ve seen, the “should have known” part of his suit is incredibly weak. Especially since it was revealed the deposition of Stamos actually vindicates the Wilpons’ side. Picard had tried to twist the deposition of Stamos into a lie.
Part of his argument
Is that he’s suggesting he can prove the Wilpons were pulling shenanigans of some sort with Madoff – for example, the willful creation of documents to pretend that a bridge loan was not a bridge loan, but an investment by the wife in SNY – as evidence that all their dealings were not strictly above board, ergo they were bad actors together in some sense. I don’t know if this is true, I don’t know if it’s provable, I don’t know how much it matters to the final settlement if it is true and provable. But the whole thing is not as simple as “the SEC didn’t (want to) know, so how could the Wilpons have known?”
I don't think the bridge loan is significant
The move to disguise it as something else may have been simply an attempt to cover up the fact that they were taking on more debt as not only MLB would disapprove (because of the 60/40 rule) but maybe also the banks as well. From a strictly legal sense, I don’t think this is anything illegal. And I don’t know how Madoff agreeing to cover up the nature of a loan is a “red flag” that his investments were a fraud. Corporate executives of companies putting out perfectly legal products and services will do these types of things all the time. Especially if it’s for a big client or friend.
And that's the danger of letting just one person decide how a deposition is interpreted
especially when he is going to take that interpretation and use it to smear someone, taint the jury pool and leak it to the Times all the while preventing the person being smeared the ability to see the deposition for himself and the context in which the supposedly “smoking words” were uttered.
Justice this ’aint.
Bingo. Totally agree.
It wouldn’t have been so bad if Picard hadn’t embarked on a calculated PR campaign with the New York Times. That was the unethical part. Not just that he leaked info under court seal, but he essentially lied about the nature of a deposition taken under oath.
Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp
More likely the guy that played the bald-headed principal in Back to the Future.
10 years from now, someone will write a book
and we’ll finally know what was going on.
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
or it'll be a documentary on espn or something
metsjetsknicksrangers.............can it get any worse?
It's already a mockumentary
"Everything's gonna be awesome." -Ken Oberkfell
"ARSHAVIN IS MAGIC" -Brooks Peck
by Thomas Wachtel on Mar 25, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am guess it's going to go this way:
A paragraph in every investment textbook, bad porn, good porn, servicable book, failed movie attempt/documentary, and finally bad movie.
Now, kids, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep; in giant blender.
None of this matters
As long as there is a lawsuit hanging over the Wilpons heads, it will lower the franchise value, limit their access to credit, and lower the amount they can expect to get from investors. Unless the lawsuit is dismissed quickly this is financially crippling regardless of the merits or the outcome.
Perception is reality.
Yup
And Picard is busily throwing everything he can at them, trying to use this leverage to force a settlement. It doesn’t look like they have the wherewithal not to blink, though, (given that they were highly leveraged before the downturn and thus overextended before any Madoff settlement was even on the horizon.)
Have I told you that you have my favorite handle/avatar on the SBNation network?
If not, you have my favorite handle/avatar on the SBNation network.
"Everything's gonna be awesome." -Ken Oberkfell
"ARSHAVIN IS MAGIC" -Brooks Peck
by Thomas Wachtel on Mar 25, 2011 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Why this is a stupid post .....
There are victims and there are VICTIMS.
The people Chaitman represents may be in the same boat as the Wilpons ie they may have suffered a net loss, but they also made a bit of money in the process.
Picard does not want to subtract the money an individuals made from the money they invested because he (and the courts) feel that all the money made by the Madoff investors were a figment of Madoff’s imagination.
He wants to put ALL the losses in one equal bucket and then claw back as much money as possible to pay the victims on an equal footing.
The thing is that some Madoff investors made as low as 10% return on investment, others made up to a 20% return. If you do treat all the losses as equal as Picard wants, then the people who were making 20% (like the Wilpons) get to keep less of the clawback than they would if it was a simple math problem of subtracting an individuals earnings from losses.
If you go to Chaitman’s firm’s website, you get the following tidbit.
A Madoff victim herself, Ms. Chaitman has devoted the 2009 year working, largely on a pro bono basis, for hundreds of Madoff investors. Working with a small group of dedicated investors, she has led a lobbying effort in Congress (also on a pro bono basis) and, in the last five months of 2009, met with 55 different Senators, Representatives, and/or the aides, advocating both tax relief and anti-claw back legislation to protect Madoff investors.
Get it. Her 500 investors (of which she is one of) stand to make a lot more money if the courts side with the Wilpons than Picard.
by brooklynlou on Mar 25, 2011 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
just to be clear
I rec’d this not because I necsarily agree it’s a stupid post, but because i do think Brooklynlou is making a cogent point about Chaitman’s possible motivations.
....
The reason I stated that the post was stupid is that there may be a reason every news outlet on the planet ignored the story. That rather than being some anti-Met ‘conspiracy’ as Mathew hints at , it could be the fact that the people Chaitman represents actually profitted from Madoff and pulled out more money than they put in. Unfortunately due to the fact that they invested with Madoff, they are labelled as victims, when in fact they should be referred to as potential “Targets of a clawback”.
Question – Are the Wilpons on of Chaitman’s clients?
Yes, i got that
I wouldn’t call Mathew’s post stupid, however, even if there is a reason why other news outlets ignored the story aside from a conspiracy of silence.
You are just speculating
1) You don’t know whether some of the “victims” Chatiman represents are actually “net losers” or not. They may not all or even mostly be clawback targets. Even the “net losers” stand to gain if the reimbursement formula Chaitman if fighting for is re-established.
2) You really think the likes of Davidoff and Sherman know the distinction between “net winners” or “net losers” or take the time to discern it before ripping they Wilpons? I don’t. Sherman makes up half his stuff anyway. And, at any rate, no one really knows the client mixture that Chaitman is representing. I think Callan was correct that it’s just more piling on for all the “sins” of the Mets franchise since the playoffs of 2006, and that ignoring Chaitman has more to do with her efforts not meshing with an agenda.
V, it says in the NY times article that she is represnting people that made money off Madoff and if you check her youtube videos, she attacks the entire concept of clawback.
Yes, I know
but that doesn’t mean she isn’t also representing non-clawback targets who are also “net losers” as they also stand to benefit from her fight to get the SIPC reimbursement formula changed.
I highly doubt all 500 of her clients are clawback targets and/or “net winners.”
All the losses go in one bucket. All the gains go in another. The cumulative losses are sutracted from the assets and everyone gets cut a check.
The problem with subtracting an individuals losses from an individuals gains is that Madoff gave some people (like the Wilpons) 20% ROI, while others got only 10%.
Since all the money made was a figment of Madoff’s imaginations, if you just do it on a account by account basis, Madoff’s friends will make twice as much money back as those that were clueless about where their hedge fund was investing their money.
Thanks Lou,
but I’m under the impression that Picard is only dealing with the Wilpon/Katz winners period. And then afterwards (after the clawback funds are all gone) will deal with the Wilpon/Katz losers.
I know I’ve read this somewhere a few times and thought it unfair while doing so. Has something changed or was I mistaken?
Yes
He has to first claw back the money that will then be distributed at some later date.
Some more simple google searches
Ms. Chaitman disapproves of the way Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee overseeing the claims process, is calculating investor losses — on the basis of "net equity," or simply the difference between the total amount invested in the fund and the total withdrawn before it collapsed.
Ms. Chaitman, who represents more than 100 others in a lawsuit against Mr. Picard, is adamant that they should be reimbursed for the total value of their accounts with Mr. Madoff, even if their withdrawals exceeded their deposits and even though the balances reflected on their statements were based on fake trades.
Sound like a familiar argument? I wonder where I heard that one before ….
Hmmm
I’m surprised that the Daily News nor WFAN (at least the Mets fans on WFAN) touched on it. I can see the Post and Mike Francesca not mentioning it since they’re Yankee fans.
let's face it
fred and saul owe at least 50M. and I ’m sure a lot of past madoff profits went into buying out doubleday I for one would not be displeased if they just sold the team. That would provide the fans with a brighter future.
It could, but it might do the opposite of that as well.
The Wilpon’s have done a hideous job of running the Mets. Their go for it every year approach, as hamhanded as it always was, while at the same time neglecting in full the very thing that caused them to make so many reaches that didn’t pay off, is reason enough to want new ownership but there is no guarantee that new ownership wouldn’t be worse or that multiple partners wouldn’t result in a disaster.
If the Wilpon’s sell that’s one thing but being forced to sell while being blackmailed is entirely a different matter and if that sale occurs while the pressure is on, that doesn’t really bode well for us.
That depends on who buys the Mets
If Stu Sternberg buys the Mets, it seems to me that the team will benefit enormously, even if Sterling Mets is forced to sell under questionable circumstances.
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
Stu Sternberg is not going to buy the Mets
What if you get someone like Peter Angelos or Loria? Both are terrible owners.
I don't know anything about Stu Sternberg
Isn’t he the vitamin water guy? Hey it worked, and much better than anything I tried but still. He might get clawed back by people who didn’t benefit from the magic elixer.
Seriously though, can anyone say for sure what Stu Sternberg’s (or anyone else’) plan would be? Be all involved like a fantasy GM? Go John Rocker from the stands like Mark Cuban? I think the Mets (through circumstances, not choice) finally have someone who will think of the big picture and finally right this thing so I would hate to see it get short circuited, especially if it were to not only lead to more bad baseball but also more and worse embarrassment off the field as well.
He grew up a Mets fan
and currently is the primary owner of the Rays. Once he bought the Rays, the franchise started to turn around. He is considered a very good owner and I wouldn’t mind him owning the Mets at all. Who knows? Maybe if there is a large judgment against the Wilpons and they have to sell everything, then Sternberg could be involved in an ownership swap like what happened to the Expos-Marlins-Red Sox. Only then can I see Sternberg owning the Mets.
As for Cuban, I doubt he ever gets approved by MLB. He is a loudmouth and doesn’t fit in with the “club.”
There doesn't need to be a franchise swap between existing owners
MLB can allow a Sternberg led group to buy the Mets (and the SNY stake,) with the Rays being sold to MLB. MLB would then seek out a new ownership group for the Rays.
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
RE: Owners
I agree, there is no way in hell Cuban (as much as I would love for him to be an owner) will be let into MLB. Selig wants owners that he can control (with him denying the loan to the Dodgers’ McCourt its an indication that Selig wants him gone) Cuban is not a owner who bows down to league offices in addition the other owners don’t want another Steinbrenner.
Trump’s name was thrown about but he will be forever tainted with his destruction of the USFL (United States Football League) of the 80s. No major sports league will ever let him in and I am thankful for that.
Ray's owner? Wow.
That changes my opinion. Obviously he doesn’t meddle, interfere, need attention or otherwise get in the way. He probably would need to balance the books though and that might prove tougher than the swap itself would be.
Anyway that’s a real credible candidate.
Appreciate it.
Mr. Levy was complicit and financed Madoff’s Ponzi for years. 100 BILLION DOLLARS (yes, that’s BILLION with a B) was laundered through the Levy accounts and Mr. Picard accepted a mere $220 Million settlement from his estate without letting the courts or victims know of the money laundering.
Madoff was an SEC regulated broker/dealer whose clients were protected by SIPC insurance as mandated by SIPA. Mr. Picard has a duty to ALL INNOCENT MADOFF INVESTORS, not just the ones HE chooses. Mr.Sheehan calls this complaint a "baseless, fallacious and unprofessional attack upon the integrity of the trustee and his counsel.". I DON’T THINK SO!!
Listen to what CONGRESSMAN Peter King has to say about the Trustee: http://youtu.be/1vI9F9rCZjk
Watch Helen Chaitman in this video, it will explain a lot: http://youtu.be/f7VmV__SR0c
Picard and SIPC
If you had an IRA with a Bank that was a Ponzi scheme (remember Lincoln Savings) FDIC would pay what you were supposed to have in your account, not ask for money back. Here Picard and SIPC are suing people with IRAs at Madoff instead of making good on the insurance they were promised by SIPC and the brokerage industry. These are some of Helen Chaitman’s clients. I had an IRA that was invested at Madoff for more than 20years because he was the only broker in history ever to be endorsed as fraud free by the SEC and the courts in 1992. Now in my old age I am called greedy and gullible by the industry crooks at SIPC and their hatchet men like Picard. All I ever did was open an IRA with an SIPC member broker. I will probably pay for my mistake with my life as the stress has caused me severe heart problems.
by Peter Moskowitz on Mar 28, 2011 10:28 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
