Strategies to Minimize Damage from Madoff & Other Recent

advertisement

Strategies to Minimize Damages

From Madoff & Other Recent

Investment Scandals

G. Robert Marcus

Erin T. Welsh

Gary N. Marks

Morris S. Bauer

Charles A. Bruder

Melinda Fellner Bramwit

John J. Eagan

The material provided herein is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice or counsel.

Please help yourself to food and drinks

Please let us know if the room temperature is too hot or cold

Bathrooms are located past the reception desk on the right

Please turn OFF your cell phones

Please complete and return surveys at the end of the seminar

2

Strategies to Deal with Madoff Losses

That Are Not Available or

Not Cost Effective

• Joining a class action

• Suing related Madoff parties individually

– Trustee and big money will be chasing these people

– Any action will be stayed by the U.S. attorney or the

Bankruptcy Court

• Suing the IRA or 401(k) administrators

• Suing the SEC or the U.S. Government

• Any action designed to change the IRS position that a theft loss deduction is unavailable to a retirement account

3

The Securities Investor

Protection Corporation and

Recovery of Customer Claims

Erin T. Welsh

Overview of the Securities Investor

Protection Corporation (“SIPC”)

• What is SIPC?

• SIPC’s Role

• SIPC’s Current Resources for Claims

• Types of Losses Covered

• Investment Products/Losses Not Covered

5

The Liquidation Proceeding

• Customer Protection Proceeding

– Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (“BLMIS”)

– Placed in liquidation proceeding December 15, 2008

– Irving H. Picard appointed as Trustee

• Trustee May Transfer Customer Accounts or

Forward Securities and Cash to Customers

– BLMIS accounts could not be transferred to another brokerage firm

• Customer Claims

– 8,000 claim forms sent to BLMIS investors

– SIPC Trustee must determine whether claims are (1) “ascertainable” from the failed brokerage firm’s records or (2) established to the satisfaction of the SIPC Trustee

6

SIPC Claims

• Who Should File a SIPC Claim?

– Who is a “Customer”?

• Multiple accounts

• Feeder funds and other indirect investors

• What is the Amount of Each Customer Claim?

– Difference between total amount put into account and total amount taken out of account

• What Documents Should be Filed With the

Claim?

• When Should a Claim Be Filed?

– July 2, 2009 deadline

7

Satisfying Customer Claims

• Customer Name Securities

• Advancements from SIPC Fund

– $500,000 limit per customer, including

$100,000 for cash claims

• Ratable Share of Customer Property

• General Estate

8

Clawbacks

• Trustee will seek to recover false profits from some customers

• Factors Considered:

– Size of investment and amount of fictitious profits at issue

– Time period over which money was invested

– Investor’s relationship with Madoff or other insiders

– Review of account statements

– Account activity and any other factors deemed appropriate by Trustee

9

Clawback

Gary N. Marks

Morris S. Bauer

How We Got Here

• SEC files for preliminary and injunctive relief versus

Madoff and Madoff Securities on 12/11/08 – Southern

District of N.Y.

• SIPC petitions Southern District to protect Madoff

Securities customers under Securities Investors

Protection Act (“SIPA”) on 12/15/08

• Federal District Court appoints Irving Picard as SIPA trustee and transfers liquidation proceedings to

Bankruptcy Court

• Judge Burton R. Lifland presiding in Bankruptcy

Court.

– Judge Lifland has previously addressed many issues that will likely arise in the Madoff case in another Ponzi case,

Manhattan Investment Fund

11

Power and Authority for Trustee’s

Clawback Powers

SIPA liquidations typically mirror liquidations under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy

Code

SIPA expressly vests power in the Trustee to recover fraudulent transfers and preference payments

11 USC

§ 547

– Permits the Trustee to recover preference payments made to creditors within 90 days of the petition

• 11 USC § 548

– Bankruptcy Codes fraudulent transfer law

– 2 year reach back period

11 USC

§ 544

– Permits trustee to use applicable non-bankruptcy law to recover fraudulent transfers

– Trustee may utilize provisions of New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-

276

• New York’s fraudulent transfer law

• 6 year reach back period

• Compare: NJ and Fla 4 year reach backs 12

Constructive Fraudulent Transfer

• A constructive fraudulent transfer is a transfer made for less than reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration by an entity that is insolvent or under capitalized

• Investors are considered to have given reasonably equivalent value for their redemptions to the extent of their original investment

• Example: Actual dollars in $100,000; redemptions within 6 years

$100,000; real dollars and in equal dollars taken out; therefore, no fraudulent transfer since the redemptions were for reasonably equivalent value

• Example: Same as above, except $200,000 redeemed within 6 years; reasonably equivalent value only to the extent of the original $100,000 invested; no reasonably equivalent value given for the excess; therefore $100,000 is recoverable as a fraudulent conveyance

• Distinction between withdrawals of principal versus withdrawals of interest?

13

Actual Fraudulent Transfer

• An actual fraudulent transfer is a transfer made with actual intent to

“hinder, delay or defraud creditors”

• One view (the Bayou case)

– All transactions by Madoff are presumed to be with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors

– Even if investors are not guilty of any wrongdoing

– No distinction between principal and interest

• Alternative view:

– Recovery as an actual fraudulent transfer requires fraudulent intent on the part of the redeeming investor

• Example: Innocent investor; $100,000 invested; redemptions within 6 years are $200,000, half principal, half interest

– Under Bayou – Presumed to be an actual fraud even if investor has done no wrong; all $200,000 recoverable as fraudulent transfer

– Alternative – Since no fraudulent intent on investor’s part there is no actual fraud; only $100,000 recoverable by Trustee

14

Good Faith Defense

• Shields transfers made for “reasonably equivalent value” or “fair consideration”

– Applies to redemptions of principal

– Fictitious profits of phantom income usually not subject to the defense

– To assert defense investor must establish:

• No “actual notice” of the fraudulent scheme

• No “inquiry notice”

– Objective test

– Should reasonably prudent investor have been “on alert” and required to learn more

– Investor who is on inquiry notice, makes diligent investigation and finds nothing can still avail himself of defense

– In Madoff case, since SEC and sophisticated financial institutions could detect no fraud, a good faith defense by an individual investor could prevail

15

Subsequent Transferee

Liability

• Example: Investor in a feeder fund requests a redemption; feeder fund in turn redeems from

Madoff and pays investor,

– Principals of actual and constructive fraudulent transfer still apply, but

– Those cases will be muddied with proof problems

– Unclear whether Picard will attempt to extend his clawback power this far

16

The Clawback Pursuit

• When?

– 2 year statute of limitations from Commencement

Date (December 15, 2008) to file clawback lawsuits

• Who?

– Unknown – Trustee states recipients of phantom income will be pursued. However, until the process is started, the Trustee still has the discretion to seek recovery from anyone who received payments.

17

The Clawback Pursuit

(cont’d)

• How?

– Demand letters

– Test case

– Settlement guidelines

• Trustee may file motion with the court under seal seeking approval of settlement parameters

– Filing of complaints

18

Settlement Strategies

• Negotiating settlements

– Representation by counsel

– Disclosure of personal financial condition, i.e. evidence of wherewithal or limitations on ability to repay the clawback claim

– Waiver of proof of claim

– Sympathy factor

19

Investment Losses and Tax-Deferred

Accounts

Charles A. Bruder

Tax-Deferred Investment

Accounts – Issues Summary

1. Individual Retirement Accounts

– No theft loss income tax deduction

• Roth IRA exception

– SIPC Claim

2. Defined Contribution Plan Accounts

– No theft loss income tax deduction

• After-tax contributions exception

– SIPC Claim

• Single claim or multiple claims?

– Potential Fiduciary Liability

21

Tax-Deferred Investment

Accounts – Issues Summary

3. Defined Benefit Plans

– No theft loss income tax deduction

– SIPC claim

– Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”)

– Potential fiduciary liability

22

Plan IRA/Participants Owners

• Theft loss income tax deductions are not available for pre-tax funds

– No basis in these amounts for income tax purposes

– IRS: Plan participants/IRA owners receive the “tax benefit” of avoiding taxation on the income that would have been generated by these accounts

• Question: Did you ever pay income taxes on any portion of your retirement plan/IRA?

23

IRA Owners

Possible Theft Loss Tax Deduction

• Potential sources\ of theft loss income tax deduction

– Roth IRAs

• IRA which has been “converted” by the owner through the payment of income taxes on some portion (or all) of the account balance

• As the owner has an income tax basis in the Roth IRA, a theft loss income tax deduction may be supportable

• Limited to the amount of the income tax basis

24

IRA Owners

Other Sources of Potential Recovery

• Third Party Liability

– Asset custodian – FISERV

– Investment Advisors/Managers

– Investment Sales Representatives

– Other professional advisors

• SIPC Claim

25

Special Considerations – Defined

Contribution Retirement Plans

• SIPC Claim – Unresolved Issues

• Possible theft loss tax deduction

• Defined contribution plans which permit after-tax contributions

• Must have been permitted under the terms of the plan

• After-tax plan contributions = income tax basis

• Theft loss income tax deduction will be limited to the income tax basis

• After-tax contributions are not permissible for defined benefit ( i.e., pension) plans

26

Special Considerations – Defined

Benefit Plans

• No theft loss income tax deduction

– All pension funds are pre-tax employer contributions

• SIPC Claim – filed on behalf of the defined benefit plan as a single account

– No individual SIPC claims

27

Special Considerations – Defined

Benefit Plans

• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”)

– Inability to pay accrued plan benefits when due is a

“Reportable Event”

– Must file a PBGC Form 10 within 30 days of “knowing or having reason to know” that a Reportable Event has occurred

– Failure to timely file may result in a loss of PBGC recovery

– Maximum annual benefits – subject to adjustment

• 2009 - $54,000

• 2008 - $51,750

– Potential subrogation claims for plan fiduciary/participants

28

Special Considerations –

Retirement Plans

• Plan Sponsors/Fiduciaries

• Potential Areas of Liability

• Breach of fiduciary duty

• Failure to exercise due diligence in investment decisions

• Failure to diversify investment funds

• Self-Directed Plans: Failure to adequately inform participants of investment risks

• Informed communication with plan participants is critical

• Review fiduciary bond provisions for potential claim/exposure

• Potential claims against third parties ( i.e., asset custodians, investment managers, plan administrators, etc.)

29

Tax Impact

John J. Eagan

Melinda Fellner Bramwit

Income for 2008 Tax Year

• February 5, 2009 Announcement by

Irving Picard

• Recommended Action For All Affected

Taxpayers

31

Current Positions on Refund Claims-

IRS Revenue Procedure 2009-20 IRS

Revenue Ruling 2009-9

• Optional Safe Harbor Method

• Illustration

32

Optional Safe Harbor Method:

Hypothetical Basis Calculation and

Theft Loss Calculation

Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC

November 30, 2008 Account Balance (includes all previously taxed income)

Less 2008 earnings (no 1099)

Theft Loss Tax Basis

Subtractions

$

5% of 11/30/08 balance if no third party claims $

$

$

(25% if third party claims)

Reimbursement Claim-SIPC

Theft Loss Deduction

$

$

2,500,000

( 200,000)

2,300,000

( 115,000)

( 500,000)

1,685,000

33

Current Positions on Refund Claims-

IRS Revenue Procedure 2009-20 IRS

Revenue Ruling 2009-9

• Optional Alternate Method

• Illustration

34

Optional Alternate Method: Hypothetical

Basis Calculation and Theft Loss

Calculation

Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC

November 30, 2008 Account Balance

Less 2008 earnings (no 1099)

Initial Theft Loss Tax Basis

Subtractions

Reimbursement Claim-SIPC

$

$

Additional Subtractions

2005 earnings (eliminated by amended return) $

2006 earnings (eliminated by amended return) $

$

$

2007 earnings (eliminated by amended return $

Theft Loss Deduction $

2,500,000

( 200,000)

2,300,000

( 500,000)

( 200,000)

( 200,000)

( 200,000)

1,200,000

35

State Law Views

• New Jersey

• New York

36

Net Operating Losses, Alternative

Minimum Tax and Other Notable Issues

• Mechanics of the NOL rules- potential 5 year carryback

• AMT issues

• Reportable Transactions

37

Recommended Action Plan

• 2005-2007 - safe harbor without amended returns versus alternate method with amended returns and state effects

• 2008 theft loss - alternative if you are in a refund position for taxes unrelated to

Madoff

• Claim optional NOL carryback for 2003-

2007 38

Questions and

Answers

Thank you for coming!

Download