P. 1
Trustee's Complaint Against David M. Becker

Trustee's Complaint Against David M. Becker

|Views: 918|Likes:
Published by DealBook

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: DealBook on Feb 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/08/2013

pdf

text

original

Baker & Hostetler LLP

45 RockeIeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 589-4200
Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
David J. Sheehan
Marc E. HirschIield
Richard J. Bernard
Geraldine E. Ponto
Marc SkapoI
Attornevs for Irving H. Picara. Trustee for the
Substantivelv Consoliaatea SIPA Liquiaation of
Bernara L. Maaoff Investment Securities LLC ana Bernara L. Maaoff
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION
CORPORATION,
PlaintiII-Applicant,
v.
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT
SECURITIES LLC,
DeIendant.
Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (BRL)
SIPA LIQUIDATION
(Substantively Consolidated)
In re:
BERNARD L. MADOFF,
Debtor.
IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee Ior the Liquidation
oI Bernard L. MadoII Investment Securities LLC,
PlaintiII,
v.
THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY BECKER,
WILLIAM P. BECKER, individually and in his
capacity as co-executor oI the ESTATE OF
DOROTHY BECKER,
Adv. Pro. No. 10- (BRL)
-2-
DANIEL I. BECKER, individually and in his
capacity as co-executor oI the ESTATE OF
DOROTHY BECKER, and
DAVID M. BECKER, individually and in his
capacity as co-executor oI the ESTATE OF
DOROTHY BECKER,
DeIendants.
COMPLAINT
Irving H. Picard (the 'Trustee¨), as trustee Ior the liquidation oI the business oI Bernard
L. MadoII Investment Securities LLC ('BLMIS¨) under the Securities Investor Protection Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 78aaa, et seq. ('SIPA¨),
1
and the substantively consolidated estate oI Bernard L.
MadoII individually ('MadoII¨), by and through his undersigned counsel, Ior his complaint (the
'Complaint¨), states as Iollows:
NATURE OF PROCEEDING
1. This adversary proceeding arises Irom the massive Ponzi scheme perpetrated by
MadoII. Over the course oI the scheme, there were more than 8,000 client accounts at BLMIS.
In early December 2008, BLMIS generated client account statements Ior its approximately 4,900
open client accounts. When added together, these statements purport that clients oI BLMIS had
approximately $65 billion invested with BLMIS. In reality, BLMIS had assets on hand worth a
small Iraction oI that amount. On March 12, 2009, MadoII admitted to the Iraudulent scheme
and pled guilty to 11 Ielony counts, and was sentenced on June 29, 2009 to 150 years in prison.
The within deIendants ('DeIendants¨) received avoidable transIers Irom BLMIS.

1
For convenience, Iuture reIerence to SIPA will not include '15 U.S.C.¨
-3-
2. DeIendants were beneIiciaries oI this Ponzi scheme. Since December 11, 2002,
DeIendants received the amount oI $2,044,494 Irom BLMIS. The Trustee`s investigation has
revealed that $1,544,494 oI this amount was Iictitious proIit Irom the Ponzi scheme.
Accordingly, DeIendants have received $1,544,494 oI other people`s money. Upon inIormation
and belieI, in addition to receiving initial transIers oI the avoidable transIers reIerenced above,
DeIendants William P. Becker, Daniel I. Becker, and David M. Becker ('Subsequent TransIeree
DeIendants¨) received subsequent transIers oI the avoidable transIers reIerenced above. To the
extent the Iunds transIerred Irom BLMIS were Ior the beneIit oI the Subsequent TransIeree
DeIendants, Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants are the initial transIerees oI such transIers and
are included in the deIinition oI DeIendants Ior purposes oI the allegations herein. This action is
brought to recover the Iictitious proIit amount so that this customer property can be equitably
distributed among all oI the victims oI BLMIS.
3. This adversary proceeding is brought pursuant to sections 78III(b), 78III-1(a) and
78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA, sections 105(a), 544, 548(a), 550(a) and 551 oI title 11 oI the United
States Code (the 'Bankruptcy Code¨), the New York Fraudulent Conveyance Act (New York
Debtor and Creditor Law § 270 et seq. (McKinney 2001) ('DCL¨)) and other applicable law, Ior
avoidance oI Iraudulent conveyances in connection with certain transIers oI property by BLMIS
to or Ior the beneIit oI DeIendants. The Trustee seeks to set aside such transIers and preserve
and recover the property Ior the beneIit oI BLMIS` deIrauded customers.
1URISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This is an adversary proceeding commenced beIore the same Court beIore whom
the main underlying SIPA proceeding, No. 08-01789 (BRL) (the 'SIPA Proceeding¨), is
pending. The SIPA Proceeding was originally brought in the United States District Court Ior the
Southern District oI New York as Securities Exchange Commission v. Bernara L. Maaoff
-4-
Investment Securities LLC et al., No. 08 CV 10791 (the 'District Court Proceeding¨) and has
been reIerred to this Court. This Court has iurisdiction over this adversary proceeding under 28
U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 15 U.S.C. §§ 78eee(b)(2)(A), (b)(4) and N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302(a) (McKinney
2010).
5. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (H), and (O).
6. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1409.
DEFENDANTS
7. The 'Estate oI Dorothy Becker¨ ('DeIendant Estate¨) BLMIS account (No.
1B0270) was created by William P. Becker, co-executor to Dorothy G. Becker`s estate, upon
Dorothy Becker`s death. DeIendant Estate`s account address is in Wynnewood, PA. Ms. Becker
died on June 27, 2004, and the Estate oI Dorothy Becker is or was being administered in the
Commonwealth oI Massachusetts Trial Court, Probate and Family Court Department, Berkshire
Division, under Docket No. 04P0520. On September 22, 2004, Dorothy G. Becker`s Last Will
was admitted to probate and William P. Becker, Daniel I. Becker, and David M. Becker, who are
the sons oI Dorothy G. Becker, were appointed as co-executors oI DeIendant Estate (collectively,
in their capacities as Executors, 'Co-Executor DeIendants¨).
8. Upon inIormation and belieI, DeIendant William P. Becker is co-executor and
beneIiciary oI DeIendant Estate. Upon inIormation and belieI, DeIendant William P. Becker
maintains his residence at in Wynnewood, PA.
9. Upon inIormation and belieI, DeIendant Daniel I. Becker is a co-executor and
beneIiciary oI DeIendant Estate. Upon inIormation and belieI, DeIendant Daniel I. Becker
maintains his residence in Williamstown, MA and/or Barrington, RI .
-5-
10. Upon inIormation and belieI, DeIendant David M. Becker is a co-executor and
beneIiciary oI DeIendant Estate. DeIendant David M. Becker maintains his residence in Bethesda,
MD.
BACKGROUND, THE TRUSTEE AND STANDING
11. On December 11, 2008 (the 'Filing Date¨),
2
MadoII was arrested by Iederal
agents Ior violation oI the criminal securities laws, including, inter alia, securities Iraud,
investment adviser Iraud, and mail and wire Iraud. Contemporaneously, the Securities and
Exchange Commission ('SEC¨) Iiled a complaint in the District Court, which commenced the
District Court Proceeding against MadoII and BLMIS. The District Court Proceeding remains
pending in the District Court. The SEC complaint alleged that MadoII and BLMIS engaged in
Iraud through the investment advisor activities oI BLMIS.
12. On December 12, 2008, The Honorable Louis L. Stanton oI the District Court
entered an order appointing Lee S. Richards, Esq. (the 'Receiver¨) as receiver Ior the assets oI
BLMIS.
13. On December 15, 2008, pursuant to section 78eee(a)(4)(A) oI SIPA, the SEC
consented to a combination oI its own action with an application oI the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation ('SIPC¨). ThereaIter, pursuant to section 78eee(a)(4)(B) oI SIPA, SIPC
Iiled an application in the District Court alleging. inter alia, that BLMIS was not able to meet its
obligations to securities customers as they came due and, accordingly, its customers needed the
protections aIIorded by SIPA.

2
Section 78lll(7)(B) oI SIPA states that the Iiling date is 'the date on which an application Ior a protective decree is
Iiled under 78eee(a)(3),¨ except where the debtor is the subiect oI a proceeding pending beIore a United States court
'in which a receiver, trustee, or liquidator Ior such debtor has been appointed and such proceeding was commenced
beIore the date on which such application was Iiled, the term Iiling date` means the date on which such proceeding
was commenced.¨ 15 U.S.C. 78lll(7)(B). Thus, even though the application Ior a protective decree was Iiled on
December 15, 2008, the Filing Date in this action is December 11, 2008.
-6-
14. Also on December 15, 2008, Judge Stanton granted the SIPC application and
entered an order pursuant to SIPA (the 'Protective Decree¨), which, in pertinent part:
a. appointed the Trustee Ior the liquidation oI the business oI BLMIS
pursuant to section 78eee(b)(3) oI SIPA:
b. appointed Baker & Hostetler LLP as counsel to the Trustee pursuant to
section 78eee(b)(3) oI SIPA: and
c. removed the case to this Court pursuant to section 78eee(b)(4) oI SIPA.
By this Protective Decree, the Receiver was removed as Receiver Ior BLMIS.
15. By orders dated December 23, 2008 and February 4, 2009, respectively, the
Bankruptcy Court approved the Trustee`s bond and Iound that the Trustee was a disinterested
person. Accordingly, the Trustee is duly qualiIied to serve and act on behalI oI the estate oI
BLMIS.
16. At a Plea Hearing on March 12, 2009 in the case captioned Unitea States v.
Maaoff, Case No. 09-CR-213(DC), MadoII pled guilty to an eleven-count criminal inIormation
Iiled against him by the United States Attorneys` OIIice Ior the Southern District oI New York.
At the Plea Hearing, MadoII admitted that he 'operated a Ponzi scheme through the investment
advisory side oI |BLMIS|.¨ Plea Allocution oI Bernard L. MadoII at 23, Unitea States v.
Maaoff. No. 09-CR-213 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. March 12, 2009) (Docket No. 50). Additionally,
MadoII asserted '|a|s I engaged in my Iraud, I knew what I was doing |was| wrong, indeed
criminal.¨ Ia. MadoII was sentenced on June 29, 2009 to 150 years in prison.
17. On August 11, 2009, a Iormer BLMIS employee, Frank DiPascali, pled guilty to
participating in and conspiring to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme. At a Plea Hearing on August 11,
2009 in the case entitled Unitea States v. DiPascali. Case No. 09-CR-764 (RJS), DiPascali pled
-7-
guilty to a ten-count criminal inIormation. Among other things, DiPascali admitted that the
Iictitious scheme had begun at BLMIS since at least the 1980s. Plea Allocution oI Frank
DiPascali at 46, Unitea States v. DiPascali. No. 09-CR-764 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2009)
(Docket No. 11).
18. As the Trustee appointed under SIPA, the Trustee is charged with recovering and
paying out customer property to BLMIS` customers, assessing claims, and liquidating any other
assets oI the Iirm Ior the beneIit oI the estate and its creditors. The Trustee is in the process oI
marshalling BLMIS` assets, and the liquidation oI BLMIS` assets is well underway. However,
such assets will not be suIIicient to reimburse the customers oI BLMIS Ior the billions oI dollars
that they invested with BLMIS over the years. Consequently, the Trustee must use his authority
under SIPA and the Bankruptcy Code to pursue recovery Irom customers who received
preIerences and/or payouts oI Iictitious proIits to the detriment oI other deIrauded customers
whose money was consumed by the Ponzi scheme. Absent this or other recovery actions, the
Trustee will be unable to satisIy the claims described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) oI SIPA
section 78III-2(c)(1).
19. Pursuant to section 78III-1(a), the Trustee has the general powers oI a bankruptcy
trustee in a case under the Bankruptcy Code in addition to the powers granted by SIPA pursuant
to SIPA section 78III(b). Chapters 1, 3, 5 and subchapters I and II oI chapter 7 oI the
Bankruptcy Code apply to this proceeding to the extent consistent with SIPA.
20. Pursuant to sections 78III(b) and 78lll(7)(B) oI SIPA, the Filing Date is deemed to
be the date oI the Iiling oI the petition within the meaning oI section 548 oI the Bankruptcy Code
and the date oI the commencement oI the case within the meaning oI section 544 oI the
Bankruptcy Code.
-8-
21. The Trustee has standing to bring these claims pursuant to section 78III-1(a) oI
SIPA and the Bankruptcy Code, including sections 323(b) and 704(a)(1), because, among other
reasons:
a. DeIendants received 'Customer Property¨ as deIined in 15 U.S.C.
§78lll(4):
b. BLMIS incurred losses as a result oI the claims set Iorth herein:
c. BLMIS` customers were iniured as a result oI the conduct detailed herein:
d. SIPC has not reimbursed, and statutorily cannot Iully reimburse, all
customers Ior all oI their losses:
e. the Trustee will not be able to Iully satisIy all claims:
I. the Trustee, as bailee oI customer property, can sue on behalI oI the
customer bailors:
g. the Trustee is the assignee oI claims paid, and to be paid, to customers oI
BLMIS who have Iiled claims in the liquidation proceeding (such claim-Iiling customers,
collectively, 'Accountholders¨). As oI the date hereoI, the Trustee has received multiple express
unconditional assignments oI the applicable Accountholders` causes oI action, which actions
could have been asserted against DeIendants and Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants. As
assignee, the Trustee stands in the shoes oI persons who have suIIered iniury in Iact and a
distinct and palpable loss Ior which the Trustee is entitled to reimbursement in the Iorm oI
monetary damages. The Trustee brings this action on behalI oI, among others, those deIrauded
customers oI BLMIS who invested more money in BLMIS than they withdrew: and
h. SIPC is the subrogee oI claims paid, and to be paid, to customers oI
BLMIS who have Iiled claims in the liquidation proceeding. SIPC has expressly conIerred upon
-9-
the Trustee enIorcement oI its rights oI subrogation with respect to payments it has made and is
making to customers oI BLMIS Irom SIPC Iunds.
THE FRAUDULENT PONZI SCHEME
22. Founded in 1959, BLMIS began operations as a sole proprietorship oI MadoII and
later, eIIective January 2001, Iormed as a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
MadoII. Since in or about 1986, BLMIS operated Irom its principal place oI business at 885
Third Avenue, New York, New York. MadoII, as Iounder, proprietor, chairman, and chieI
executive oIIicer, ran BLMIS together with several Iamily members and a number oI additional
employees. BLMIS was registered with the SEC as a securities broker-dealer under section
15(b) oI the Securities Exchange Act oI 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(b). By that registration, BLMIS
is a member oI SIPC. BLMIS had three business units: investment advisory (the 'IA
Business¨), market making, and proprietary trading.
23. For certain accounts in the IA Business, BLMIS purported to participate in a
capital appreciation/depreciation strategy, depending on whether the customer sought to generate
gains or losses. For example, the strategy was executed by either purporting to purchase small
groups oI securities near lows and then purporting to sell those same securities at highs, or by
purporting to short-sell securities near highs and then purporting to repurchase those securities
near lows.
24. For other accounts, MadoII described the IA Business` strategy as a 'split-strike
conversion¨ strategy. MadoII promised these clients that their Iunds would be invested in a
basket oI common stocks within the S&P 100 Index, which is a collection oI the 100 largest U.S.
publicly traded companies. The basket oI stocks would be intended to mimic the movement oI
the S&P 100 Index. MadoII asserted that he would careIully time purchases and sales to
maximize value, but this meant that the clients` Iunds would intermittently be out oI the market,
-10-
at which times they would purportedly be invested in U.S.-issued securities and money market
Iunds. The second part oI the split-strike conversion strategy was the hedge oI such purchases
with option contracts. MadoII purported to purchase and sell S&P 100 Index option contracts
that closely corresponded with the stocks in the basket, thereby controlling the downside risk oI
price changes in the basket oI stocks.
25. Although clients oI the IA Business received monthly or quarterly statements
purportedly showing the securities that were held in or had been traded through their
accounts, as well as the growth oI and proIit Irom those accounts over time, the trades reported
on these statements were a complete Iabrication. The security purchases and sales depicted in
the account statements virtually never occurred and the proIits reported were entirely Iictitious.
At his Plea Hearing, MadoII admitted that he never in Iact purchased any oI the securities he
claimed to have purchased Ior customer accounts. See Plea Allocution oI Bernard L. MadoII at
3, Unitea States v. Maaoff. No. 09-CR-213 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. March 12, 2009) (Docket No. 50).
Indeed, based on the Trustee`s investigation to date and with the exception oI isolated individual
trades Ior certain clients other than DeIendants, there is no record oI BLMIS having cleared any
purchase or sale oI securities on behalI oI the IA Business at the Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation, the clearing house Ior such transactions.
26. Prior to his arrest, MadoII assured clients and regulators that he conducted all
trades on the over-the-counter market aIter hours. To bolster that lie, MadoII periodically wired
tens oI millions oI dollars to BLMIS` aIIiliate, MadoII Securities International Ltd. ('MSIL¨), a
London-based entity substantially owned by MadoII and his Iamily. There are no records that
MSIL ever used the wired Iunds to purchase securities Ior the accounts oI the IA Business
clients.
-11-
27. Additionally, based on the Trustee`s investigation to date, there is no evidence
that BLMIS ever purchased or sold any oI the options that MadoII claimed on customer
statements to have purchased and sold.
28. For all periods relevant hereto, the IA Business was operated as a Ponzi scheme
and MadoII and his co-conspirators concealed the ongoing Iraud in an eIIort to hinder, delay or
deIraud other current and prospective customers oI BLMIS. The money received Irom investors
was not set aside to buy securities as purported, but instead was primarily used to make the
distributions to or payments on behalI oI other investors. The money sent to BLMIS Ior
investment, in short, was simply used to keep the scheme going and to enrich MadoII, his
associates and others, including DeIendants, until such time as the requests Ior redemptions in
December 2008 overwhelmed the Ilow oI new investments and caused the inevitable collapse oI
the Ponzi scheme.
29. The payments to investors constituted an intentional misrepresentation oI Iact
regarding the underlying accounts and were an integral and essential part oI the Iraud. The
payments were necessary to validate the Ialse account statements and were made to avoid
detection oI the Iraud, to retain existing investors, and to lure other investors into the Ponzi
scheme.
30. During the scheme, certain investors requested and received distributions oI the
so-called 'proIits¨ listed Ior their accounts, which were nothing more than Iictitious proIits.
Other investors, Irom time to time, redeemed or closed their accounts, or removed portions oI
purportedly available Iunds, and were paid consistently with the statements they had been
receiving. Some oI those investors later re-invested part or all oI those withdrawn payments with
BLMIS.
-12-
31. When payments were made to or on behalI oI these investors, including
DeIendants, the IalsiIied monthly statements oI accounts reported that the accounts oI such
investors included substantial gains. In reality, BLMIS had not invested the investors` principal
as reIlected in customer statements. In an attempt to conceal the ongoing Iraud and thereby
hinder, delay or deIraud other current and prospective investors, BLMIS paid to or on behalI oI
certain investors the inIlated amounts reIlected in the IalsiIied Iinancial statements, including
principal and/or Iictitious proIits.
32. BLMIS used the Iunds deposited Irom new investments to continue operations
and pay redemption proceeds to or on behalI oI other investors and to make other transIers. Due
to the siphoning and diversion oI new investments to Iund redemptions requested by other
investors, BLMIS did not have the Iunds to pay investors on account oI their new investments.
BLMIS was able to stay aIloat only by using the principal invested by some clients to pay other
investors or their designees.
33. In an eIIort to hinder, delay or deIraud authorities Irom detecting the Iraud,
BLMIS did not register as an Investment Advisor until September 2006.
34. In or about January 2008, BLMIS Iiled with the SEC a UniIorm Application Ior
Investment Adviser Registration. The application represented, inter alia, that BLMIS had 23
customer accounts and assets under management oI approximately $17.1 billion. In Iact, in
January 2008, BLMIS had approximately 4,900 active client accounts with a purported value oI
approximately $65 billion under management.
35. Not only did MadoII seek to evade regulators, MadoII also had Ialse audit reports
'prepared¨ by Friehling & Horowitz, a three-person accounting Iirm in Rockland County, New
-13-
York. OI the two accountants at the Iirm, one was semi-retired and living in Florida Ior many
years prior to the Filing Date.
36. At all times relevant hereto, the liabilities oI BLMIS were billions oI dollars
greater than the assets oI BLMIS. At all relevant times, BLMIS was insolvent in that (i) its
assets were worth less than the value oI its liabilities: (ii) it could not meet its obligations as they
came due: and (iii) at the time oI the transIers, BLMIS was leIt with insuIIicient capital.
THE TRANSFERS
37. According to BLMIS` records, an account (No. 1B0270) was maintained with
BLMIS, as set Iorth on Exhibit A (the 'Account¨). Upon inIormation and belieI, Ior the
Account, a Customer Agreement, an Option Agreement, and/or a Trading Authorization Limited
to Purchases and Sales oI Securities and Options (collectively, the 'Account Agreements¨) were
executed and delivered to BLMIS at BLMIS' headquarters at 885 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.
38. The Account Agreements were to be perIormed in New York, New York through
securities trading activities that would take place in New York, New York. The Accounts were
held in New York, New York, and DeIendants, and/or their predecessors-in-interest, sent Iunds
to BLMIS and/or to BLMIS` account at JPMorgan Chase & Co., Account #xxxxxxxxxxx1703
(the 'BLMIS Bank Account¨) in New York, New York Ior application to the Accounts and the
purported conducting oI trading activities. Between the date the account was opened and the
Filing Date, DeIendant Estate and the Co-Executor DeIendants made deposits to BLMIS through
checks and/or wire transIers into the BLMIS Bank Account and/or received inter-account
transIers Irom other BLMIS accounts.
39. During the six years prior to the Filing Date, BLMIS made transIers (collectively,
the 'TransIers¨) to DeIendants totaling at least $1,544,494 in Iictitious proIits Irom the Ponzi
-14-
scheme. The TransIers received by DeIendants constitute non-existent proIits supposedly earned
in the Account, but, in reality, they were other people`s money. The TransIers were made to or
Ior the beneIit oI DeIendants and are set Iorth in Column 11 on Exhibit B annexed hereto.
40. The TransIers that are avoidable and recoverable under sections 544(b), 550(a)(1)
and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, applicable provisions oI SIPA, particularly SIPA section 78III-
2(c)(3), and applicable provisions oI N.Y. CPLR 203(g) (McKinney 2001) and DCL sections
273 279 (McKinney 2001) total at least $1,544,494 and are reIerred to hereaIter as the 'Six
Year TransIers.¨ See Exhibit B, Column 11.
41. On inIormation and belieI, some or all oI the TransIers were subsequently
transIerred by DeIendants to the Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants (collectively, the
'Subsequent TransIers¨).
42. The Subsequent TransIers, or the value thereoI, are recoverable Irom the
Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants pursuant to §550(a) oI the Bankruptcy Code.
43. The Trustee`s investigation is ongoing and the Trustee reserves the right to
(i) supplement the inIormation regarding the TransIers, Subsequent TransIers, and any additional
transIers and (ii) seek recovery oI such additional transIers.
44. To the extent that any oI the avoidance and/or recovery counts may be
inconsistent with each other, they are to be treated as being pled in the alternative.
COUNT ONE
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - NEW YORK DEBTOR AND CREDITOR LAW §§ 276,
278 AND/OR 279, AND 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 550(a) AND 551
45. To the extent applicable, the Trustee incorporates by reIerence the allegations
contained in the previous paragraphs oI this Complaint as iI Iully rewritten herein.
46. At all times relevant to the Six Year TransIers, there have been and are one or
more creditors who have held and still hold matured or unmatured unsecured claims against
-15-
BLMIS that were and are allowable under section 502 oI the Bankruptcy Code or that were and
are not allowable only under section 502(e) oI the Bankruptcy Code.
47. Each oI the Six Year TransIers constituted a conveyance by BLMIS as deIined
under DCL section 270.
48. Each oI the Six Year TransIers was made by BLMIS with the actual intent to
hinder, delay, or deIraud the creditors oI BLMIS. BLMIS made each oI the Six Year TransIers
to or Ior the beneIit oI DeIendants in Iurtherance oI a Iraudulent investment scheme.
49. As a result oI the Ioregoing, pursuant to DCL sections 276, 278 and/or 279,
sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA, the
Trustee is entitled to a iudgment against DeIendants: (a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year
TransIers, (b) directing that the Six Year TransIers be set aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year
TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS.
COUNT TWO
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - NEW YORK DEBTOR AND CREDITOR LAW §§ 273
AND 278 AND/OR 279, AND 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 550(a) AND 551
50. To the extent applicable, the Trustee incorporates by reIerence the allegations
contained in the previous paragraphs oI the Complaint as iI Iully rewritten herein.
51. At all times relevant to the Six Year TransIers, there have been and are one or
more creditors who have held and still hold matured or unmatured unsecured claims against
BLMIS that were and are allowable under section 502 oI the Bankruptcy Code or that were and
are not allowable only under section 502(e) oI the Bankruptcy Code.
52. Each oI the Six Year TransIers constituted a conveyance by BLMIS as deIined
under DCL section 270.
53. BLMIS did not receive Iair consideration Ior any oI the Six Year TransIers.
54. BLMIS was insolvent, or became insolvent as a result oI the Six Year TransIers.
-16-
55. As a result oI the Ioregoing, pursuant to DCL sections 273, 278 and/or 279,
sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA, the
Trustee is entitled to a iudgment against DeIendants: (a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year
TransIers, (b) directing that the Six Year TransIers be set aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year
TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS.
COUNT THREE
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - NEW YORK DEBTOR AND CREDITOR LAW §§ 274,
278 AND/OR 279, AND 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 550(a), AND 551
56. To the extent applicable, the Trustee incorporates by reIerence the allegations
contained in the previous paragraphs oI the Complaint as iI Iully rewritten herein.
57. At all times relevant to the Six Year TransIers, there have been and are one or
more who have held and still hold matured or unmatured unsecured claims against BLMIS that
were and are allowable under section 502 oI the Bankruptcy Code or that were and are not
allowable only under section 502(e) oI the Bankruptcy Code.
58. Each oI the Six Year TransIers constituted a conveyance by BLMIS as deIined
under DCL section 270.
59. BLMIS did not receive Iair consideration Ior any oI the Six Year TransIers.
60. At the time BLMIS made each oI the Six Year TransIers, BLMIS was engaged or
was about to engage in a business or transaction Ior which the property remaining in its hands
aIter each oI the Six Year TransIers was an unreasonably small capital.
61. As a result oI the Ioregoing, pursuant to DCL sections 274, 278 and/or 279,
sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA, the
Trustee is entitled to a iudgment against DeIendants: (a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year
TransIers, (b) directing that the Six Year TransIers be set aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year
TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS.
-17-
COUNT FOUR
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - NEW YORK DEBTOR AND CREDITOR LAW §§ 275,
278 AND/OR 279, AND 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 550(a), AND 551
62. To the extent applicable, the Trustee incorporates by reIerence the allegations
contained in the previous paragraphs oI the Complaint as iI Iully rewritten herein.
63. At all times relevant to the Six Year TransIers, there have been and are one or
more creditors who have held and still hold matured or unmatured unsecured claims against
BLMIS that were and are allowable under section 502 oI the Bankruptcy Code or that were and
are not allowable only under section 502(e) oI the Bankruptcy Code.
64. Each oI the Six Year TransIers constituted a conveyance by BLMIS as deIined
under DCL section 270.
65. BLMIS did not receive Iair consideration Ior any oI the Six Year TransIers.
66. At the time BLMIS made each oI the Six Year TransIers, BLMIS had incurred,
was intending to incur, or believed that it would incur debts beyond its ability to pay them as the
debts matured.
67. As a result oI the Ioregoing, pursuant to DCL sections 275, 278 and/or 279 and
sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA, the
Trustee is entitled to a iudgment against DeIendants: (a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year
TransIers, (b) directing that the Six Year TransIers be set aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year
TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS.
COUNT FIVE
RECOVERY OF SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER - NEW YORK DEBTOR AND
CREDITOR LAW §§ 278 AND/OR 279 AND 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 550(a) AND 551
68. To the extent applicable, the Trustee incorporates by reIerence the allegations
contained in the previous paragraphs oI this Complaint as iI Iully rewritten herein.
-18-
69. Each oI the TransIers is avoidable under sections 544 oI the Bankruptcy Code,
DCL sections 273, 274, 275 and/or 276 and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA.
70. On inIormation and belieI, the Subsequent TransIers were transIerred by
DeIendants to the Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants.
71. Each oI the Subsequent TransIers was made directly or indirectly to the
Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants.
72. The Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants are immediate or mediate transIerees oI
the Subsequent TransIers.
73. As a result oI the Ioregoing and the avoidance oI the within TransIers, pursuant to
DCL sections 278 and/or 279, sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and
section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA, the Trustee is entitled to a iudgment against the Subsequent
TransIeree DeIendants: (a) avoiding and preserving the Subsequent TransIers, (b) directing that
the Subsequent TransIers be set aside, and (c) recovering the Subsequent TransIers, or the value
thereoI, Irom the Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants Ior the beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectIully requests that this Court enter iudgment in Iavor
oI the Trustee and against DeIendants as Iollows:
i. On the First Claim Ior RelieI, pursuant to DCL sections 276, 278 and/or 279,
sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA:
(a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year TransIers, (b) directing that the Six Year TransIers be
set aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the
beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS:
ii. On the Second Claim Ior RelieI, pursuant to DCL sections 273, 278 and/or 279,
sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA:
-19-
(a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year TransIers, (b) directing that the Six Year TransIers be
set aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the
beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS:
iii. On the Third Claim Ior RelieI, pursuant to DCL sections 274, 278 and/or 279,
sections 544(b), 550(a), and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA:
(a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year TransIers, (b) directing the Six Year TransIers be set
aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the
beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS:
iv. On the Fourth Claim Ior RelieI, pursuant to DCL sections 275, 278 and/or 279,
sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA:
(a) avoiding and preserving the Six Year TransIers, (b) directing that the Six Year TransIers be
set aside, and (c) recovering the Six Year TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom DeIendants Ior the
beneIit oI the estate oI BLMIS:
v. On the FiIth Claim Ior RelieI as a result oI the avoidance oI the within TransIers,
pursuant to DCL section 278 and/or 279, sections 544(b), 550(a) and 551 oI the Bankruptcy
Code, and section 78III-2(c)(3) oI SIPA: (a) avoiding and preserving the Subsequent TransIers:
(b) directing that the Subsequent TransIers be set aside: and (c) recovering the Subsequent
TransIers, or the value thereoI, Irom the Subsequent TransIeree DeIendants Ior the beneIit oI the
estate oI BLMIS:
vi. On all Claims Ior RelieI, pursuant to Iederal common law and N.Y. CPLR 5001
and 5004, awarding the Trustee preiudgment interest Irom the date on which the TransIers were
received:
-20-
vii. On all Claims Ior RelieI, establishment oI a constructive trust over the proceeds oI
the TransIers in Iavor oI the Trustee Ior the beneIit oI BLMIS` estate:
viii. On all Claims Ior RelieI, assignment oI DeIendants` income tax reIunds Irom the
United States, state, and local governments paid on Iictitious proIits during the course oI the
scheme:
ix. On all Claims Ior RelieI, awarding the Trustee all applicable interest, costs, and
disbursements oI this action: and
x. On all Claims Ior RelieI, granting PlaintiII such other, Iurther, and diIIerent relieI
as the Court deems iust, proper and equitable.
Date: November 12, 2010
New York, New York
OI Counsel:
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 1100
Denver, Colorado 80203-1264
Telephone: (303) 861-0600
Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
Laurin D. Quiat
Email: lquiat(bakerlaw.com
Paul S. Enockson
Email: penockson(bakerlaw.com
Karin S. Jenson
Email: kienson(bakerlaw.com
By: /s/ Marc E. HirschIield
/s/ Richard J. Bernard
/s/ Geraldine E. Ponto
/s/ Marc SkapoI
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 RockeIeller Plaza
New York, New York 10111
Telephone: (212) 589-4200
Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
David J. Sheehan
Email: dsheehan(bakerlaw.com
Marc E. HirschIield
Email: mhirschIield(bakerlaw.com
Richard J. Bernard
Email: rbernard(bakerlaw.com
Geraldine E. Ponto
Email: gponto(bakerlaw.com
Marc SkapoI
Email: mskapoI(bakerlaw.com
Attornevs for Irving H. Picara. Trustee for the
Substantivelv Consoliaatea SIPA Liquiaation
of Bernara L. Maaoff Investment Securities
LLC ana Bernara L. Maaoff

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->