Madoff trustee triples JPMorgan suit to $19 billion

NEW YORK Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:15pm EDT

Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) Trustee Irving Picard speaks as Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (L) looks on during a news conference in New York, announcing the return of $7.2 billion from the estate of Madoff insider Jeffry Picower to settle civil claims for victims of Bernard Madoff's ponzi scheme December 17, 2010. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) Trustee Irving Picard speaks as Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (L) looks on during a news conference in New York, announcing the return of $7.2 billion from the estate of Madoff insider Jeffry Picower to settle civil claims for victims of Bernard Madoff's ponzi scheme December 17, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The trustee seeking money for Bernard Madoff's victims is now demanding $19 billion in damages from JPMorgan Chase & Co, more than tripling what he hopes to recover from what had been the main bank for the now-imprisoned Ponzi schemer.

The amended complaint by the trustee Irving Picard adds new charges and was filed three days after the second-largest U.S. bank agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fraud charges.

Picard maintained that JPMorgan was "thoroughly complicit" in Madoff's fraud and ignored red flags. In his original complaint, made public in February, he had sought $6.4 billion, including $5.4 billion of damages and $1 billion for fraudulent transfers and claims.

"JPMorgan Chase chose to enable Madoff's fraud, not just through the various ways it participated in its activity, but by helping to cover Madoff's naked theft with the imprimatur of a globally recognized financial institution," the 155-page amended complaint said.

The higher damage request reflects "life-to-date damages," or what the trustee considers the minimum losses over the entirety of Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Picard is also seeking at least $500 million that JPMorgan made "off the backs of Madoff's victims," and more than $400 million of alleged fraudulent transfers.

Tasha Pelio, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, repeated in an email the bank's earlier statement that Picard's lawsuit is meritless and distorts the facts and law.

"JPMorgan did not know about or in any way become a party to the fraud orchestrated by Bernard Madoff," she said. "At all times, JPMorgan complied fully with all laws and regulations governing bank accounts."

Picard has filed roughly 1,050 lawsuits seeking more than $100 billion for former investors at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

"BEFORE THEIR VERY EYES"

The amended JPMorgan complaint adds new allegations that another financial services company around 1997 investigated nearly daily transfers of $1 million to $10 million between Madoff's account there and his account at Chase.

It said that company questioned Madoff's employees about the suspicious back-and-forth transfers. Having failed to be satisfied about them, they closed Madoff's account, it said.

"JPMorgan Chase's bankers literally watched the fraud unfold before their very eyes," Deborah Renner, a lawyer representing Picard, said in a statement. Both are partners at the law firm Baker & Hostetler.

The amended complaint also discusses Madoff's longtime relationship with Sterling Equities, a private banking customer of JPMorgan founded by Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, owners of the New York Mets baseball team.

Picard has sued the Mets' owners for $1 billion, prompting them to enter talks to sell part of the team to hedge fund manager David Einhorn for $200 million. [ID:nN26247232] The owners have denied knowing Madoff was committing fraud.

In a regulatory filing last month, JPMorgan estimated that as of March 31 it might have to pay out as much as $4.5 billion more for litigation than it had set aside for that purpose. It also said it faced more than 10,000 legal proceedings.

Tuesday's SEC accord resolved charges that JPMorgan did not tell investors that a hedge fund helped shape -- and then bet against -- complex mortgage securities they bought.

HSBC, BANK MEDICI, UNICREDIT ALSO SUED

Picard's case against JPMorgan is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon.

It is one of three high-profile Madoff lawsuits that have been moved to federal district court, where juries can hear cases, from bankruptcy court, where Picard originally sued.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff is reviewing some issues in Picard's $9 billion case against HSBC Holdings Plc.

Rakoff is also considering whether the trustee can invoke racketeering law in a $58.8 billion lawsuit against Italy's UniCredit SpA, Austria's Bank Medici AG and its founder Sonja Kohn, and other defendants.

JPMorgan has until August 1 to respond to the amended complaint, Picard said.

Madoff, 73, was arrested on December 11, 2008, and after pleading guilty is serving a 150-year prison sentence.

JPMorgan shares fell 16 cents in after-hours trading, after closing Friday's session down 58 cents at $39.49.

The cases are Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-ap-04932; and Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-00913.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Jochelle Mendonca in Bangalore; editing by Andre Grenon, Gary Hill)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
MatthewJarvis wrote:
When will the trustee start suing the directors of SEC, FINRA and the FBI?? They received detailed letters regarding Madoff’s fraud and ignored all of them. Why should JPMorgan have to pay billions when the real blame lay with government employees that despite being grossly neglegent, still received cost of living adjustments?!?

Jun 24, 2011 9:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zzguardian wrote:
I imagine it’s because that the government most likely has laws that protects it’s own if and when they ‘try’ to do a good job. It’s time the safety net is taken away from the government employees so that they can be sued for gross negligence or complicity. Not just the directors, but all employees, all agencies. It might make those who are getting a government paycheck, earn that paycheck.

Jun 24, 2011 11:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
puzzled wrote:
Its a great and appropriate question. Its clear that the SEC was more than negligent. Unfortunately, I think Picard needs the government to back him as he tries to butt heads with the likes of JPM and HSBC. Bottom line is that he can sue the SEC and its obvious that that SEC has the means to pay – we can just borrow more money. SEC goes around alleging everything about everyone and often distorting facts to make things sound worse than they are. This time, the facts against them are pretty darn clear.

Jun 24, 2011 11:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

A tourist takes a plunge as she swims at Ngapali Beach, a popular tourist site, in the Thandwe township of the Rakhine state, October 6, 2013. Picture taken October 6, 2013. REUTERS/Soe Zeya Tun (MYANMAR - Tags: SOCIETY) - RTR3FOI0

Where do you want to go?

We look at when to take trips, budget considerations and the popularity of multigenerational family travel.   Video