April 19, 2024

Judge Denies Madoff Trustee’s Quest for Damages From Big Banks

In a decision released Tuesday, Judge Colleen McMahon of United States District Court in Manhattan ruled that the trustee, Irving H. Picard, did not have the legal right to pursue $20 billion in combined damage claims against JPMorgan Chase Company and UBS.

JPMorgan Chase served for decades as Mr. Madoff’s banker and also created and sold derivatives pegged to his investment performance. UBS provided various banking and administrative services to a host of European investment funds that steered money into Mr. Madoff’s hands.

The ruling on Tuesday echoed the reasoning offered in July by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, also of United States District Court, when he barred the trustee from seeking a combined $8.8 billion in similar damage claims against HSBC, the London-based banking giant, and UniCredit, one of Italy’s largest banking groups.

The banks’ arguments before Judge Rakoff persuaded him to dismiss the disputed claims, Judge McMahon noted in her opinion. “I am persuaded as well,” she said.

As in the cases before Judge Rakoff, the issue before Judge McMahon was whether Mr. Picard, as the trustee for Mr. Madoff’s bankrupt estate, could sue the banks for harm they supposedly caused to Mr. Madoff’s investors, as opposed to harm inflicted on the bankrupt estate.

And like Judge Rakoff, Judge McMahon determined that when Mr. Picard sued third parties for damages, he stood in the shoes of Mr. Madoff, the Ponzi schemer, not in the shoes of Mr. Madoff’s victims. Therefore, he could sue only if the defendants had harmed Mr. Madoff, which they clearly had not done, since their banking services facilitated the flow of cash into his fraud from around the world.

Therefore, only Mr. Madoff’s creditors — his victims — have legal standing to sue the various bank defendants for damages, Judge McMahon said.

Underlying Mr. Picard’s arguments was the question of whether those victims had the practical means or the leeway under bankruptcy law to individually pursue multibillion-dollar claims against a roster of global banks.

The trustee’s lawsuits accused the defendant banks of willfully turning a blind eye to evidence that Mr. Madoff was operating a fraud, thereby allowing his scheme to continue and increasing the financial destruction it caused. Mr. Picard argued in court that federal law gave him the power to pursue those damage claims on behalf of the creditors.

Judge McMahon acknowledged that “allowing the trustee to pursue claims that belong properly to individual creditors would accrue to the benefit of all creditors by augmenting the bankruptcy estate,” the primary source from which Mr. Picard hopes to compensate the cash losers in Mr. Madoff’s scheme.

And she noted that if Mr. Picard were able to collect enough in damages, he could also make payments to those who lost only their paper profits in the scheme, although they would not receive as much as the cash losers.

But those practicalities did not tilt her ruling in favor of Mr. Picard’s legal theory.

“This theory is not supported by the statute’s text and history or by any persuasive case law,” Judge McMahon concluded. She said the points of law put forward by the trustee before her and before Judge Rakoff were “no more persuasive to me than they were to him.”

As a result of her ruling, the trustee’s claims against the two giant banks will be limited to those that fall under the terms of the federal bankruptcy code, which allows Mr. Picard to recover fictional profits withdrawn during a specific period before the collapse of the Madoff fraud in December 2008.

For JPMorgan Chase, according to the trustee’s calculations, those claims are less than $500 million, a fraction of the $19 billion Mr. Picard was seeking. However, he remains free to pursue just over half of the $2 billion he sought from UBS in the bankruptcy court.

In a statement, the trustee’s lawyers said they had appealed Judge Rakoff’s ruling and intended to appeal this latest decision as well. The trustee and his counsel “remain confident in the cases,” the statement continued.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=cbe065c65e708dbf8f8c4581e5c64d58

Investors Fret at Costs if Rescues Are Needed

But as bank shares plummeted this week, the question on investors’ minds was not whether governments would rescue their banks if necessary. It was how much a bailout might cost them.

Whether it is Société Générale in France, UniCredit in Italy or Santander in Spain, the fear is that already indebted countries will find themselves in deeper trouble if they are forced to rescue some of their biggest banks.

By one measure, according to a recent report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, 90 of Europe’s biggest banks hold 4.7 trillion euros ($6.7 trillion) in short-term loans that must be repaid over the next two years. That burden alone is more than half of the combined gross domestic product of the 17 nations that share the euro currency.

“This problem has become cancerous,” said Stephen Jen, a former economist at the International Monetary Fund who runs a hedge fund in London. “France will not hesitate to fiscalize its banks — but it will be very expensive.”

Shares of European bank stocks were volatile on Thursday. Société Générale, which has been the focus of the greatest fears, ended the day up 3.7 percent. But its stock price is still down 16 percent this week — and off almost 43 percent for the year.

Shares of Santander climbed 3.2 percent and UniCredit rose 3.4 percent Thursday. But they, too, were rebounding slightly after big recent sell-offs.

In another danger signal, commercial bank reliance on the European Central Bank for short-term loans spiked to a three-month high on Wednesday. Banks borrowed 4 billion euros, or $5.7 billion, compared with 2 billion euros the day before, according to figures released on Thursday. That would indicate the banks are becoming wary of lending to one another, preferring to borrow from the central bank.

“What strikes me in the crisis of the last few weeks is the large content of self-fulfilling prophesies,” said Paul De Grauwe, an economist in Brussels who advises the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso. “The fear that something bad will happen increases the probability that the something bad occurs.”

Heightening market anxiety is the realization that the banks that have promised to participate in the Greek debt restructuring may face larger losses than expected. Société Générale, which has one of the larger Greek exposures among major European banks, already announced a 268 million euro charge early this month.

What is more, Europe’s latest plan to address its bank problem — endowing its rescue fund, the European Financial Stability Facility, with the power to recapitalize banks — will take at least another month to become functional. Parliaments of the euro area countries must vote on the rescue fund’s new charter, and approval is by no means guaranteed.

Despite statements this week by Société Générale that it is in good condition, unconfirmed rumors have swirled through the markets that some of its lenders — including Singapore and the United States — were threatening to cut their exposure.

Addressing the issue head on, the governor of the French central bank, Christian Noyer, said on Thursday that the latest results of so-called stress tests on French banks demonstrated their health and that they had adequate capital to ride out any difficulties.

“Recent stock market movements won’t affect the financial stability of the banks or the resilience they have shown since the beginning of the crisis,” Mr. Noyer said.

And the agency that regulates French financial markets took pains to warn that “the dissemination of unfounded information is subject to sanction.”

The attacks on French banks began amid speculation that French government debt was about to lose its gilt-edged AAA credit rating.

France’s three largest banks — BNP Paribas, Société Générale, and Crédit Agricole — have bulging portfolios of French government bonds that represent substantial portions of their core capital. The latest worries, focused on the prospect of a lower rating for those bonds, could put pressure on the banks to raise more capital almost immediately if a downgrade occurred.

Jack Ewing contributed reporting from Frankfurt.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/business/global/investors-fret-at-costs-if-european-banks-need-rescues.html?partner=rss&emc=rss