Annual Report 2011

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Annual Report 2011 SECurITIes InVestor ProteCTIon CorporatIon ANNUAL REPORT 2011 SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION 805 FIFTEENTH STREET, N.W., SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-2215 (202) 371-8300 FAX (202) 371-6728 WWW.SIPC.ORG April 30, 2012 The Honorable Mary L. Schapiro Chairman Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549 Dear Chairman Schapiro: On behalf of the Board of Directors I submit herewith the Forty-first Annual Report of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation pursuant to the provisions of Section 11(c)(2) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970. Respectfully, Sharon Y. Bowen Acting Chair Contents SIPC shall not Message from the Acting Chair 3 be an agency or Overview of SIPC 4 establishment of the United States Directors & Officers 5 Government . SIPC shall be Customer Protection Proceedings 6 a membership Membership and the SIPC Fund 8 corporation the members of Litigation 11 which shall be all Disciplinary and Criminal Actions 15 persons registered as brokers or Financial Statements and Auditor’s Report 16 dealers* . .” — Securities Investor Protection SIPC Fund Comparison 27 Act of 1970 Sec. 3(a)(1)(A) & (2)(A) Appendix 1: Distributions for Accounts of Customers for the 28 Forty-One Years Ended December 31, 2011 * Except those engaged exclusively in the distribution of mutual fund shares, the sale of variable annuities, Appendix 2: Analysis of SIPC Revenues and Expenses for the 29 the insurance business, Five Years Ended December 31, 2011 furnishing investment advice to investment companies or insurance company separate accounts, and those whose Appendix 3: Customer Protection Proceedings 30 principal business is conducted outside the United States. Also excluded are government A: Customer Claims and Distributions Being Processed 30 securities brokers and dealers who are registered as such under section 15C(a)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act B: Customer Claims Satisfied, Litigation Matters Pending 32 of 1934, and persons who are registered as brokers or dealers under section 15(b)(11)(A) of C: Proceedings Completed in 2011 34 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. D: Summary 36 2 SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION MESSAGE FROM THE ACTIng CHAIR SIPC had no customer protection proceed- tomer exposure. SIPC began each as soon ings for two years until 2011 when MF as it became apparent that the need existed. Global Inc. and WallStreet*E Financial In May, SIPC started a direct payment pro- Services, Inc. were initiated. ceeding to protect an individual whose as- sets were not returned to him from the de- MF Global Inc. funct firm when it closed its doors. Because The liquidation of MF Global Inc. and re- no court proceeding was needed, the satis- lated entities in late October 2011 was the faction of the claim, and the review of other eighth largest bankruptcy, of any kind, in claims, proceeded with dispatch, and the en- history. While the WallStreet*E Financial tire matter should be closed for all purposes Services case demonstrated SIPC’s ability to in 2012. The ability to use a streamlined pro- react in an efficient way to a small case, the cess was beneficial to all concerned. MF Global case demonstrated how quickly and effectively SIPC was able to respond to Stanford Group Company a massive failure. In the Stanford case, SIPC did not initiate SIPC was first notified of the need for a a customer protection proceeding because liquidation proceeding of MF Global Inc. doing so would be inconsistent with the at 5:20 a.m. on the morning of October statutory mandate of SIPC. There is no 31. By that afternoon legal pleadings were doubt that there are numerous victims of drafted, counsel for SIPC initiated a cus- fraud in the Stanford matter, and all of us Sharon Y. Bowen tomer protection proceeding, and the court at SIPC recognize that the Stanford Ponzi placed the firm in liquidation under the scheme is a tragedy for investors that has Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) caused a significant hardship. However, Board shortly after the release of this fi- under the control of a court-appointed SIPA protects only the “custody” or “safe- nal Report and the expiration of his term Trustee. Despite chaotic records, and more keeping” function performed by broker- on the SIPC Board. Chairman Johnson than $1.6 billion missing and unavailable age firms, and does not protect investors noted that the SIPC Board will consider for distribution, a highly experienced SIPC against the loss of value of any security, the Task Force’s recommendations after staff and the Trustee made partial distribu- even if that loss was caused by fraud. reviewing all appropriate materials and tions to commodities claimants, within a Notwithstanding the foregoing, SIPC commissioning any further empirical week, and transferred securities positions was notified by the SEC that a SIPA case analysis it deems necessary. to allow securities customers to begin to should be initiated for Stanford. After Chairman Johnson took office at the regain control of some or all of their port- complete and detailed consideration of the height of the financial crisis. As a result of folios shortly thereafter. The Trustee has unique factors presented by the Stanford the Lehman Brothers and Madoff cases, since made additional partial distributions matters, reluctantly, SIPC declined, find- SIPC’s work is in the public eye as never as the case proceeded. ing no statutory basis to do so. The case before. SIPC was fortunate to have his Contrary to commentary that commodi- proceeds in the United States District leadership and guidance during this dra- ties customers would have fared better in a Court in Washington DC. matic time. We thank him and the mem- liquidation regime under the Bankruptcy bers of the Task Force for the critical roles Code rather than SIPA, the SIPA statutory SIPC Modernization Task Force they played in examining and proposing scheme specifically contemplates the possi- Report under Former Chairman ways to modernize SIPC in the vein of its bility of a SIPC member with commodities Orlan Johnson statutory mandate. customers. As such, the provisions of the At the conclusion of his term, Chair- Bankruptcy Code dealing with commodities man Orlan Johnson withdrew from the are indeed being followed by the Trustee. SIPC Board. At his confirmation hear- ing, Chairman Johnson proposed the WallStreet*E Financial first full review of SIPC’s operations Services, Inc. since 1978. That proposal resulted in the WallStreet*E Financial Services is a case SIPC Modernization Task Force, which with exceptionally small customer exposure. has now completed its work. Chairman Sharon Y. Bowen MF Global is a case with substantial cus- Johnson stepped down from the SIPC Acting Chair 2011 ANNUAL REPORT 3 OVerVIEW of SIPC The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) had its origins in the difficult years of 1968–70, when the paperwork crunch, brought on by unexpectedly high trading volume, was followed by a very severe decline in stock prices. Hundreds of broker-dealers were merged, acquired or simply went out of business. Some were unable to meet their obligations to customers and went bankrupt. Public confidence in our securities markets was in jeopardy. ongress acted swiftly, passing the Securities control of customers’ and members’ assets to satisfying Investor Protection Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. § valid customer claims and accounting for the handling C 78aaa et seq. (SIPA). Its purpose is to afford of all assets and liabilities. certain protections against loss to customers result- The resources required to protect customers beyond ing from broker-dealer failure and, thereby, promote those available from the property in the possession of investor confidence in the nation’s securities markets. the trustee for the failed broker-dealer are advanced by Currently, the limits of protection are $500,000 per SIPC. The sources of money for the SIPC Fund are customer except that claims for cash are limited to assessments collected from SIPC members and inter- $250,000 per customer. est on investments in United States Government secu- SIPC is a nonprofit, membership corporation. Its rities. In addition, if the need arises, the SEC has the members are, with some exceptions, all persons regis- authority to lend SIPC up to $2.5 billion, which it, in tered as brokers or dealers under Section 15(b) of the turn, would borrow from the United States Treasury. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all persons who __________ are members of a national securities exchange. See the series 100 Rules Identifying Accounts of “separate A board of seven directors determines policies and customers” of SIPC members. governs operations. Five directors are appointed by * Section 3(a)(2)(A) of SIPA excludes: the President of the United States subject to Senate (i) persons whose principal business, in the determination of SIPC, taking into account business of affiliated entities, is conducted approval. Three of the five represent the securities outside the United States and its territories and possessions; industry and two are from the general public. One (ii) persons whose business as a broker or dealer consists director is appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury exclusively of (I) the distribution of shares of registered open end investment companies or unit investment trusts, (I ) the and one by the Federal Reserve Board from among sale of variable annuities, (II ) the business of insurance, or the officers and employees of those organizations. (IV) the business of rendering investment advisory services to one or more registered investment companies or insurance The Chairman and the Vice Chairman are designated company separate accounts; and by the President from the public directors. (iii) persons who are registered as a broker or dealer pursuant to The self-regulatory organizations—the exchanges [15 U.S.C.
Recommended publications
  • Special Committee Report
    REPORT OF THE 2009 SPECIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ON FINRA’S EXAMINATION PROGRAM IN LIGHT OF THE STANFORD AND MADOFF SCHEMES SEPTEMBER 2009 SPECIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Charles A. Bowsher (Chairman) ———————————— Ellyn L. Brown ———————————— Harvey J. Goldschmid ———————————— Joel Seligman ———————————— INDUSTRY GOVERNOR ADVISERS OF COUNSEL Mari Buechner Paul V. Gerlach W. Dennis Ferguson Griffith L. Green G. Donald Steel Dennis C. Hensley Michael A. Nemeroff SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 A. The Stanford Case................................................................................................. 2 B. The Madoff Case................................................................................................... 4 C. Recommendations................................................................................................. 6 II. BACKGROUND ON FINRA EXAMINATION PROGRAM...................................... 9 III. EXAMINATIONS OF MEMBER FIRMS INVOLVED IN THE STANFORD AND MADOFF SCANDALS.................................................................. 11 A. The Stanford Case............................................................................................... 12 1. Background............................................................................................... 12 2. Daniel Arbitration and 2003 Cycle Examination...................................... 13 3. 2003
    [Show full text]
  • The Madoff Investment Securities Fraud: Regulatory and Oversight Concerns and the Need for Reform Hearing Committee on Banking
    S. HRG. 111–38 THE MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES FRAUD: REGULATORY AND OVERSIGHT CONCERNS AND THE NEED FOR REFORM HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON HOW THE SECURITIES REGULATORY SYSTEM FAILED TO DETECT THE MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES FRAUD, THE EXTENT TO WHICH SECURITIES INSURANCE WILL ASSIST DEFRAUDED VICTIMS, AND THE NEED FOR REFORM JANUARY 27, 2009 Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ( Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 50–465 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\DOCS\50465.TXT JASON COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JIM BUNNING, Kentucky EVAN BAYH, Indiana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MEL MARTINEZ, Florida DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii BOB CORKER, Tennessee SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JIM DEMINT, South Carolina JON TESTER, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana HERB KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska MARK R. WARNER, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado COLIN MCGINNIS, Acting Staff Director WILLIAM D.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Factors: Moral Philosophies and Values 153
    CHAPTER 6 B E L L , F E L E C I A 2 0 INDIVIDUAL FACTORS:9 MORAL PHILOSOPHIES5 AND VALUES B U ©Stanislav Bokrach,©Stanislav Shutterstock Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHAPTER OBJECTIVES CHAPTER OUTLINE t To understand how moral philosophies and Moral Philosophy Defined values influence individual and group ethical Moral Philosophies decision making in business Instrumental and Intrinsic Goodness To compare and contrast the teleological, t Teleology deontological, virtue, and justice perspectives of moral philosophy B Deontology E Relativist Perspective t To discuss the impact of philosophies Virtue Ethics on business ethics L Justice t To recognize the stages of cognitive moral L development and its shortcomings , Applying Moral Philosophy to Ethical Decision Making t To introduce white-collar crime as it relates Cognitive Moral Development to moral philosophies, values, and corporateF culture White-Collar Crime E Individual Factors in Business Ethics L E AN ETHICAL DILEMMA* C One of the problems that Lael Matthews has had to to promoting Liz might be a perception that Lael is deal with in trying to climb the corporate ladder is I playing favorites. the glass ceiling faced by minorities and women. AndA Roy is a 57-year-old Caucasian, married with now, in her current position, she must decide which three children, who graduated from a private of three managers to promote, a decision that, as university in the top half of his class.
    [Show full text]
  • October 30, 2013 Tenth Interim Report
    08-01789-brl Doc 5554 Filed 10/30/13 Entered 10/30/13 16:52:26 Main Document Pg 1 of 107 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Irving H. Picard Email: [email protected] David J. Sheehan Email: [email protected] Seanna R. Brown Email: [email protected] Heather R. Wlodek Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC And Bernard L. Madoff UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (BRL) Plaintiff-Applicant, SIPA Liquidation v. (Substantively Consolidated) BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF, Debtor. TRUSTEE’S TENTH INTERIM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 08-01789-brl Doc 5554 Filed 10/30/13 Entered 10/30/13 16:52:26 Main Document Pg 2 of 107 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 5 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 7 III. FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ESTATE ................................................................ 7 IV. ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE .......................................................................... 8 A. Marshaling And Liquidating The Estate Assets ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bernard Madoff A
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Faculty Scholarship 12-31-2009 Evil Has a New Name (And a New Narrative): Bernard Madoff A. Christine Hurt BYU Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation A. Christine Hurt, ???? ??? ? ??? ???? (??? ? ??? ?????????): ??????? ??????, 2009 Mɪᴄʜ. Sᴛ. L. Rᴇᴠ. 947. This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVIL HAS A NEW NAME (AND A NEW NARRATIVE): BERNARD MADOFF Christine Hurt* 2009 MICH. ST. L. REV. 947 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................. ....... 947 I. MADOFF'S EXTRAORDINARY CRIME.........................951 A. The Rise and Fall of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities..951 B. Madoff's Scheme as Affinity Fraud ..................... 957 II. VICTIMS SHAPE THE MADOFF NARRATIVE ....................... 959 A. Victim Impact Statements ................... ......... 961 B. Sentencing "Extraordinary Evil " ............. ........... 965 C. Restitution, Remission, and Compensation ......... ...... 968 1. Restitution ....................................... 968 2. SIPC Compensation ............................ 969 3. Tax Relief ................ .................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Year in Review: SEC and SRO Selected Enforcement Cases and Developments Regarding Broker-Dealers
    review 2010 Year in Review: SEC and SRO Selected Enforcement Cases and Developments Regarding Broker-Dealers www.morganlewis.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 The SEC.............................................................................................................. 1 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act........................... 3 FINRA.................................................................................................................. 4 NYSE Euronext ................................................................................................... 5 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission .............................................................. 6 Personnel Changes and New Specialized Unit Chiefs ........................................ 6 Implementation of Enforcement’s Restructuring.................................................. 9 Enforcement Statistics....................................................................................... 10 Insider Trading, FBI MOU and Operation Broken Trust..................................... 14 Cooperation Initiatives ....................................................................................... 16 SEC Enters Into First Nonprosecution Agreement ............................................ 21 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.................................................................. 25 SEC OIG Report Concerning
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Year in Review: SEC and SRO Selected Enforcement Cases and Developments Regarding Broker-Dealers
    review 2009 Year in Review: SEC and SRO Selected Enforcement Cases and Developments Regarding Broker-Dealers www.morganlewis.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 The SEC ................................................................................................... 2 Developments Relating to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme..................... 4 Auction Rate Securities............................................................................. 4 FINRA....................................................................................................... 4 NYSE Regulation...................................................................................... 5 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ................................................................... 7 Enforcement Developments at the SEC in 2009 ................................................. 7 Changes in Personnel and Division of Enforcement Structure ................. 7 Enforcement Statistics .............................................................................. 9 Policy Developments .............................................................................. 11 Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force............................................... 13 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission ....................................................... 13 Legislative Developments....................................................................... 14 Current
    [Show full text]
  • First Interim Trustee Report.DOC
    Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Irving H. Picard Email: [email protected] David J. Sheehan Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Esq. Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC And Bernard L. Madoff UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION Adv. Pro. No. 08-1789 (BRL) CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, SIPA Liquidation v. (Substantively Consolidated) BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF, Debtor. TRUSTEE’S FIRST INTERIM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 11, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009 300016705 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................2 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................5 IV. LIQUIDATION PROCEEDING..........................................................................5 V. ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE..............................................................7 A. RETENTION OF PROFESSIONALS ............................................................7 B. MARSHALLING AND LIQUIDATION OF ESTATE ASSETS ...................8 C. WIND-DOWN OF ESTATE OPERATIONS...............................................15 VI. FINANCIAL
    [Show full text]
  • 08-01789-Smb Doc 18151 Filed 11/01/18 Entered 11/01/18 18:04:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 2
    08-01789-smb Doc 18151 Filed 11/01/18 Entered 11/01/18 18:04:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 2 November 1, 2018 Stacey A. Bell direct dial: 212.589.4632 [email protected] VIA ECF Honorable Stuart M. Bernstein United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York One Bowling Green, Room 723 New York, New York 10004-1408 Re: Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (SMB) Dear Judge Bernstein: We are counsel to Irving H. Picard, trustee (the “Trustee”) for the substantively consolidated liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and the chapter 7 estate of Bernard L. Madoff under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa et seq. We write in response to the Court’s November 1, 2018 request to the Trustee for copies of the deposition transcripts of Bernard L. Madoff in connection with the Trustee’s Motion for Limited Additional Discovery Based on Prior Orders Authorizing Deposition of Bernard L. Madoff filed Sept. 21, 2018. See ECF No. 18015. To that end, we are filing herewith the following transcripts: Exhibit A: Transcript of Deposition of Bernard L. Madoff dated April 26, 2017 Exhibit B: Transcript of Deposition of Bernard L. Madoff dated April 27, 2017 Exhibit C: Transcript of Deposition of Bernard L. Madoff dated November 8, 2017 Exhibit D: Transcript of Deposition of Bernard L. Madoff dated November 9, 2017 The deposition transcript of Bernard L. Madoff dated December 20, 2016 was previously filed on June 26, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Ponzi Scheme Litigation
    3 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PONZI SCHEME LITIGATION Lawrence J. Zweifach Sophia N. Khan Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Mr. Zweifach is a partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Ms. Khan is an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. If you find this article helpful, you can learn more about the subject by going to www.pli.edu to view the on demand program or segment for which it was written. 99 I. INTRODUCTION Within a period of one and one-half years, from September 2008 to December 2009, authorities discovered four of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history. Most notorious among them is Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme of epic proportions, which in December 2008 was reported to have been conducted for more than 20 years and to have involved more than $65 billion in investor losses. Following the Madoff scandal in size and scale are the schemes of Tom Petters, the architect of a $3.7 billion, ten-year long fraud that came to light in September 2008; Robert Allen Stanford, whose scheme surfaced in February 2009 and is believed to have spanned ten years and involved $8 billion; and Scott Rothstein, who confessed in December 2009 to running a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. These Ponzi schemes have spawned major litigation in courts in the United States and abroad. Each case has led to multiple criminal prosecutions—not only of the four individuals who are ultimately credited with designing the fraudulent schemes, but also of their employees, associates and, in some cases, auditors, who are alleged to have been their co-conspirators in executing the fraud.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Complaint Against Cohmad.DOC
    Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 David J. Sheehan Email: [email protected] Marc E. Hirschfield Email: [email protected] Of Counsel: John W. Moscow Email: [email protected] Oren J. Warshavsky Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: SIPA LIQUIDATION BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT No. 08-01789 (BRL) SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the Liquidation Adv. Pro. No. __________ (BRL) of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Plaintiff, v. COHMAD SECURITIES CORPORATION, MAURICE J. COHN, MARCIA B. COHN, ROBERT JAFFE, ALVIN J. DELAIRE, JR., STANLEY MERVIN BERMAN, JONATHAN GREENBERG, CYRIL JALON, MORTON KURZROK, LINDA SCHOENHEIMER MCCURDY, RICHARD SPRING, ROSALIE BUCCELLATO, MILTON S. COHN, MARILYN COHN, JANE M. DELAIRE A/K/A JANE DELAIRE HACKETT, CAROLE DELAIRE, EDWARD H KOHLSCHREIBER, EDWARD H KOHLSCHREIBER SR REV MGT TRUST, GLORIA KURZROK, JOYCE BERMAN, S & J PARTNERSHIP, JANET JAFFIN REVOCABLE TRUST, THE SPRING FAMILY TRUST, JEANNE T. SPRING TRUST, THE ESTATE OF ELENA JALON, THE JOINT TENANCY OF PHYLLIS GUENZBURGER AND FABIAN GUENZBURGER, THE JOINT TENANCY OF ROBERT PINCHOU AND FABIAN GUENZBURGER, ELIZABETH M. MOODY Defendants. COMPLAINT Irving H. Picard, Esq. (the “Trustee”), as trustee for the liquidation of the business of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78aaa, et seq. (“SIPA”), by and through his undersigned counsel, for his Complaint against Cohmad Securities Corporation (“Cohmad”), Maurice “Sonny” J.
    [Show full text]
  • April 25, 2012 Seventh Interim Report
    08-01789-brl Doc 4793 Filed 04/25/12 Entered 04/25/12 18:26:02 Main Document Pg 1 of 73 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Irving H. Picard Email: [email protected] David J. Sheehan Email: [email protected] Seanna R. Brown Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC And Bernard L. Madoff UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (BRL) Plaintiff-Applicant, SIPA Liquidation v. (Substantively Consolidated) BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF, Debtor. TRUSTEE’S SEVENTH INTERIM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2012 08-01789-brl Doc 4793 Filed 04/25/12 Entered 04/25/12 18:26:02 Main Document Pg 2 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 4 III. FINANCIAL CONDITION OF ESTATE ......................................................................... 4 IV. ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE .......................................................................... 5 A. Marshaling And Liquidating The Estate Assets .................................................... 5 B. Retention Of Professionals
    [Show full text]