Opinion

Alison Frankel

$90 bln answer: Rakoff says Picard has no standing in bank suits

Alison Frankel
Jul 29, 2011 19:57 UTC

In the end, it wasn’t even a close call.

Using words like “conjecture,” “bootstrapping,” and “a stretch,” Manhattan federal court judge Jed Rakoff on Thursday decimated trustee Irving Picard‘s multibillion-dollar campaign against the banks that allegedly helped Bernard Madoff engineer his fraud, in a 26-page opinion that left no room for doubt. Rakoff so thoroughly rejected each and every one of Picard’s arguments for why he had the right to bring common law fraud claims against HSBC and UniCredit that the judge didn’t even cite much legal precedent through the first half of the ruling. He simply applied what he calls “ordinary use of the English language” to conclude that no reading of the relevant laws or cases grants Picard standing to sue the banks for unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. This ruling derived its power — and it is a very powerful opinion — from its simplicity.

Rakoff’s ruling immediately affected Picard’s $6.6 billion case against HSBC and a parallel $2.2 billion case against UniCredit. But it’s going to have huge repercussions beyond those suits. Judge Rakoff is also presiding over Picard’s $60 billion racketeering case against UniCredit and related defendants, and it’s a certainty that UniCredit’s lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom will ask the judge to apply his ruling on Picard’s standing and bounce that suit as well.

Meanwhile, Judge Colleen McMahon, who is Judge Rakoff’s neighbor on the 14th floor of the Manhattan federal courthouse, is poised to rule on Picard’s standing in his common-law suits against UBS and JPMorgan Chase. McMahon is certainly an independent-minded judge so it would be a mistake to assume she’ll simply follow Rakoff’s lead. But Rakoff knew full well how intensely his ruling on Picard’s standing would be scrutinized, and nevertheless showed no equivocation in his opinion. It’s hard to imagine Judge McMahon reaching a contrary conclusion.

If McMahon — and, ultimately, the appellate courts — agree with Rakoff, Picard’s audacious attempt to hold the banks responsible for failing to end Madoff’s Ponzi scheme is doomed. As I reported a few weeks back, Picard’s standing to bring common-law claims against the banks is a threshold issue. To prosecute a suit, you have to be able to show that you were injured. Picard, as the bankruptcy trustee in the Madoff Chapter 11, stands in the shoes of the debtor, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. But his common-law claims against the banks weren’t brought on behalf of Madoff’s now-defunct investment company — which, as Rakoff explained in Thursday’s ruling, is barred from suing alleged co-conspirators like the banks by a doctrine called in pari delicto. Instead, Picard’s lawyers at Baker & Hostetler said they were bringing claims against the banks on behalf of Madoff’s customers, who lost billions when Madoff’s scheme was exposed.

HSBC’s lawyers at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and UniCredit’s Skadden counsel countered that as bankruptcy trustee, Picard has no right to stand in the shoes of Madoff’s customers.

Bondholder beats Argentina on appeal but still may not recover

Alison Frankel
Jul 21, 2011 21:59 UTC

For vulture funds holding defaulted Argentinean bonds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has been a brick wall with only the tiniest of chinks. In recent years, the appellate court has rejected all sorts of clever stratagems the bondholders and their lawyers have dreamed up in an effort to get their hands on Argentine assets, including an attempt to attach assets belonging to Argentina’s central bank and pension system.

One notable exception to the rule of bondholder frustration at the Second Circuit was the appellate court’s 2006 ruling that a holder called Capital Ventures International had the right to attach Argentine collateral (in the form of U.S. and German government securities) held by the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Argentina put up the securities to back its 1992 issuance of so-called “Brady bonds,” which, under a plan pushed by then-Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, exchanged $28.5 billion in defaulted bonds for collateralized Brady bonds due in 2023. The Second Circuit’s 2006 ruling meant that if Argentina attempted to restructure or exchange the Brady bonds before their 2023 maturity, CVI was first in line to get its hand on the securities held at the Fed.

There was just one big problem with the 2006 appellate ruling for CVI and its lawyers at Ballard Spahr and Cozen O’Connor: it came too late. By the time the Second Circuit overturned a lower court ruling and granted CVI a right to the Fed-held collateral, Argentina had already completed an exchange of $2.8 billion in Brady bonds. Because CVI only had a right to the collateral at the Fed if Argentina was engaged in a Brady bond exchange, CVI was out of luck, despite its appellate win. CVI was left holding a big-money judgment against Argentina — more than $200 million in CVI’s case — with no foreseeable way to collect on it.

  •