APR-38-2812 19: 14JUDGE RAKQFFP. 83/33
UNITED STATES DZSTR1CT CQURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKSECURZTZES INVESTOR PROTECTIONCQRPQRATION,
Plaintiff,12 KC 115 (JSR)
v
OPINZQN AND ORDERBERNARD L, MADOFF INVESTMENT
SECURITIES LLC,
Defendant.In re.
MADOFF SECURITIES
PERTAINS TQ THE FQLLQWING CASES;
Pi ard v
Greiff, 11 Civ. 3775;
Picard v.
lumenthal, 11 Civ. 4293;
Picard v
Qoldman, 11 Civ. 4959;
Pi ard vHein, ll Civ, 4936;and cases
listed in Appendix
P.
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S D J
A "Ponzi" scheme, by definition, involves the use of fundsreceived from new victims to pay monies transferred to prior victi~swho seek to withdraw the promised returns on their investments. Aperennial issue when the scheme topples is whether and to what extentsuch transferred funds can be recaptured by a representative of the
Inv.
Sec, LLC, 654 F.3d 229, 231 (2d Cir. 20ll). Often, moreover, theresolution of this issue ia partly a function of just what kind of