The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Irving Picard, the Trustee overseeing the Madoff liquidation proceeding, to distribute billions of dollars to victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.  On Monday, the Court declined to hear appeals in two cases from the Second Circuit challenging Picard’s formula for repaying victims.

We have been following the saga of the case brought by Irving Picard, the trustee overseeing the Bernard Madoff bankruptcy liquidation proceeding, against the owners of the NY Mets, Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon.

On the surface, Irving Picard, the trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), had a very good day. Judge Jed S.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff this week denied the request of Irving Picard, the trustee of Bernard L.

IN RE: IFC CREDIT CORP. (December 5, 2011)

Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz, and their families and affiliated enterprises (the “Wilpon/Katz Group”) last week formally requested the dismissal of the adversary proceeding commenced by Irving Picard, the trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”). In a two hour hearing before U.S.

The well known travails of Fred Wilpon, the principal owner of the New York Mets, have all converged this past week. He, his partner Saul Katz and their families and affiliated enterprises (the “Wilpon/Katz Group”) lost several hundred million dollars when Bernard Madoff’s long running Ponzi scheme finally unraveled at the height of the financial crisis in 2008.

Landmark decision holds that the SFO does not have the power to procure documents from foreign companies outside the jurisdiction.

Merit Management

Two recent court decisions may affect an equity sponsor’s options when deciding whether and how to put money into - or take money out of - a portfolio company. The first may expand the scope of “inequitable conduct” that, in certain Chapter 11 settings, could lead a court to equitably subordinate a loan made by a sponsor to its portfolio company, placing the loan behind all of the company’s other debt in the payment queue. The second decision muddies the waters of precedent under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on the issue of the avoidability of non-U.S.