Comments on: Ire at Madoff Swings Toward the Referee http://www.news42day.com/2009/07/ire-at-madoff-swings-toward-the-referee/ Best news for today Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:49:28 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: klerg http://www.news42day.com/2009/07/ire-at-madoff-swings-toward-the-referee/comment-page-1/#comment-8046 klerg Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:12:19 +0000 http://www.news42day.com/?p=1628#comment-8046 Mr. Friedman: I've been looking for laws which back up up your assessment that SIPC has always paid victims of Ponzi schemes in the past based upon the balance of their last statement up to the maximum allowed. Can you please point me towards one? On the flip side, can anyone point me towards a case where it says that SIPC should not do this? Mr. Friedman:

I’ve been looking for laws which back up up your assessment that SIPC has always paid victims of Ponzi schemes in the past based upon the balance of their last statement up to the maximum allowed. Can you please point me towards one?

On the flip side, can anyone point me towards a case where it says that SIPC should not do this?

]]> By: Richard Friedman http://www.news42day.com/2009/07/ire-at-madoff-swings-toward-the-referee/comment-page-1/#comment-7613 Richard Friedman Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:05:40 +0000 http://www.news42day.com/?p=1628#comment-7613 If I didn't know better I would think that Irving Picard was the author of this article. Let's attack the Madoff victims because they have the audacity of wanting SIPC, the agency that was formed for the purpose of protecting investors should their broker go bankrupt or there is a theft, for wanting SIPC to follow the existing laws that they have always followed. Let's attack the victims for not wanting their withdrawals within the last 90 days before 12/11/08 from being clawed back, conveniently forgetting that Picard is applying bankruptcy laws where it does not apply. When people are taking back their own money, it is not like a creditor getting preferential treatment on a debt that is owed. If Picard is so correct on what he is doing, then how come he has yet to cite the law that he is following. Explain why SIPC has always paid victims of Ponzi schemes in the past based upon the balance of their last statement up to the maximum allowed, and now they have decided not to, even though the law specifically states that they are not permitted to change their own laws. Picard does not have a series of "unpalatable" choices as the writer says, rather he has made all his decisions unpalatable because he has not followed the law. Why doesn't the writer of this article read the law of SIPA, the Securities Investor Protection Act first, and then make all the statements he wants after familiarizing himself with what the law is. This is not a matter of making it up as you go along. The Madoff investors are furious with Picard and Harbeck (President of SIPC), because the law is very specific and Harbeck who has been around forever in SIPC is very familiar with it. How dare he decide to change it. Why would he do such a thing? Perhaps a closer look as to how SIPC is funded might reveal some answers. SIPC if funded by the Securities industry, and until this April was paying a mere $150 per company in order to "induce" investors to feel that they were protected up to the maximum allowed, by having the SIPC logo on statements and confirmation slips. Now that SIPC has to pay out according to law, they don't want to because they are underfunded, and the securities industry, now called on their "bluff" that they underfunded the agency created to induce investors to invest with them, had to come up with a way for SIPC to stay solvent. The answer was to simply change the law and put out a "public relations" blitz to make the public at large and the press to thinik that they were doing the right thing. The lesson to be learned here is that you can't trust governmental agencies and beware of reporters who are expressing opinons rather than facts. If I didn’t know better I would think that Irving Picard was the author of this article. Let’s attack the Madoff victims because they have the audacity of wanting SIPC, the agency that was formed for the purpose of protecting investors should their broker go bankrupt or there is a theft, for wanting SIPC to follow the existing laws that they have always followed. Let’s attack the victims for not wanting their withdrawals within the last 90 days before 12/11/08 from being clawed back, conveniently forgetting that Picard is applying bankruptcy laws where it does not apply. When people are taking back their own money, it is not like a creditor getting preferential treatment on a debt that is owed. If Picard is so correct on what he is doing, then how come he has yet to cite the law that he is following. Explain why SIPC has always paid victims of Ponzi schemes in the past based upon the balance of their last statement up to the maximum allowed, and now they have decided not to, even though the law specifically states that they are not permitted to change their own laws. Picard does not have a series of “unpalatable” choices as the writer says, rather he has made all his decisions unpalatable because he has not followed the law. Why doesn’t the writer of this article read the law of SIPA, the Securities Investor Protection Act first, and then make all the statements he wants after familiarizing himself with what the law is. This is not a matter of making it up as you go along. The Madoff investors are furious with Picard and Harbeck (President of SIPC), because the law is very specific and Harbeck who has been around forever in SIPC is very familiar with it. How dare he decide to change it. Why would he do such a thing? Perhaps a closer look as to how SIPC is funded might reveal some answers. SIPC if funded by the Securities industry, and until this April was paying a mere $150 per company in order to “induce” investors to feel that they were protected up to the maximum allowed, by having the SIPC logo on statements and confirmation slips. Now that SIPC has to pay out according to law, they don’t want to because they are underfunded, and the securities industry, now called on their “bluff” that they underfunded the agency created to induce investors to invest with them, had to come up with a way for SIPC to stay solvent. The answer was to simply change the law and put out a “public relations” blitz to make the public at large and the press to thinik that they were doing the right thing. The lesson to be learned here is that you can’t trust governmental agencies and beware of reporters who are expressing opinons rather than facts.

]]>