Wilpons Take Battle With Picard To U.S. Supreme Court

29 Comments + Add Comment

• Des February 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm

  I think the shortest path to financial solvency for the Mets and success on the baseball field results from Pickpocket Picard biting the dust. Irving Picard is just a legal variation of a slip and fall lawyer.
  • Metro69 February 8, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    The noose keeps tightening for Picard.
    • Greg Pomes February 8, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      Unfortunately it’s his clients that are the one’s that will suffer. Those billable hours add up after awhile. Picard loses he still has made a fortune on this case, he can retire and enjoy his life.
  • USMF February 9, 2012 at 9:54 am

    There’s a story that got very little press…but Picard is/was getting sued by the victims that he’s supposed to be helping.

    I’m trying my best to remember the details, but basically fro what I remember; the victims are a upset because Picard made a back door settlement with a couple of the really big investors (families whose investments made Wilpon look small) off with relativity small slap on the wrist.

    There are plenty of other lawsuits against Picard by people who got ruined by Madoff and then had everything else taken by Picad by using “strong arm” tactics.
• srt February 8, 2012 at 9:47 pm

  The tide appears to be turning, doesn’t it?

  Picard struck first and came out with guns blazing but it appears his strategy might have backfired.

  In the meantime…..2013? Ugh.
  When do pitchers and catchers report?
• Alex in CT February 8, 2012 at 10:00 pm

  I read somewhere that Picard and his partners are getting like a quarter billion win or lose in fees. I wonder who really shafted the victims Madoff or Picard. Plus I hope Wilpon sues after he clears his name. I’ve gone from disliking Wilpon to feeling empathy for what he’s gone through.
  • Greg Pomes February 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Alex I’ve said from the beginning that Picard was a creep and just as big a crook as Bernie. He has damaged the reputations of a great family for his own financial wealth. I know that isn’t popular thinking for those that want the Wilpons gone and bloggers who write books but it’s the truth. Like you I hope they sue this creep, it will serve him right.
  • saltygary February 8, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    I’ve had a lot of criticism over the years for the Wilpon’s but I definitely have some empathy. This family worked their tail off and created that American dream. It didn’t just fall in their lap, it came from hard work. Where they failed is greed and not diversifying. When you have that much money, they should have it in many different instruments, and though I don’t know the full extent of their losses and I haven’t bothered reading Mr. Megdal’s book, it seems they had too many cookies in one jar.
    • Greg Pomes February 8, 2012 at 10:25 pm

      The problem I have with this Picard lawsuit is for starters the net amount of money they made from Madoff was around 40 million, at least that is what has been reported. Now they say they’re net losers. Picard went for the money and the headlines, not doing his due diligence. They shouldn’t have had that much money with 1 investor but hopefully this picard garbage will be nipped in the bud soon.
      • SaltyGary February 9, 2012 at 10:01 am

        Picard is in this to make a name for himself just like any other attorney that would take this case. Or think of attorneys for OJ or defense of Casey Anthoney’s mom. It’s a sad state of affairs.
    • Des February 8, 2012 at 10:39 pm

      The history of this sordid tale tells us that they had too many cookies in the jar but we have to admit that only by looking in the rear view mirror do we make perfect decisions. In the world we all live in, almost all of us try to optimize our wealth and happiness. So I don’t think Fred and company were any more greedy than you or me or anyone else. They had more opportunities based on their prior wealth and accomplishments, but they only were guilty of making a decision to grow their money. There’s nothing wrong with that in my way of thinking. The federal judge has already ruled that Picard’s assertion that Fred should have known Uncle Bernie was doing something illegal is nonsensical. That assertion has to be proven, which the Bad Uncle so far has failed to do.
      • SaltyGary February 9, 2012 at 10:00 am

        I agree with hindsight, but the returns they were getting were far beyond most instruments and they leveraged those in many decisions. Just take the decisions on Saberhagen and Bonilla’s contracts. Instead of paying it outright they put what they owed into a Bernie instrument that was paying over something like 8% a year. So now they are paying them 250k and 1.9m a year for 25 years. Instead if they paid outright they would of paid 4m and 5.9m respectively.

        The decisions they were making were based on returns not based on what makes sense for the team to grow.
• Joey D. February 8, 2012 at 11:08 pm

  Many of us have long since recognized that lawyers are not idealistic bastions of justice and righteousness but simply legal minds contracted by individuals to win cases for them and whether or not the lawyer believes their client to be innocent or guilty is of little consequence to them. It’s can they win the case. This routinely involves innuendos and manipulation of facts to make an argument appear in a certain light with full knowledge they are presenting a false premise to influence the jury. In public relations and politics this is called spin.

  With this in mind, Picard is no different than his colleagues representing the Wilpons. Both are interested less in a just decision than they are simply winning their case and getting an elaborate fee. Picard could have wound up working for the Wilpons with the firm Davis, Polk, Woodell being appointed as the trustee instead. So debating either’s motives is irrelevant since they are both partners in crime sort of speak.

  As far as the legal battle is concerned, not being a lawyer I do wonder if filing such a request with the Supreme Court is routine in this type of civil suit or is an indication of the Wilpons not being too confident they can be found innocent in at least the major charges facing them. For all we know, that fraud insurance the Wilpons took out to protect their investments with Madoff, which included the possibility of a ponzi scheme, is the smoking gun in Picard’s argument that Fred and Jeff indeed had an inkling that something was wrong.

  Again, that might be an unfair innuendo but how it impacts the jury decision is all that really matters.

  No doubt both Fred and Jeff had to step on many an individual to get to the point they are in the corporate world for that is the ruthless nature of big business and the only way one can survive. Regardless of whether or not they began to suspect that something was wrong with their friend Bernie, the moral equation should be left out of this argument What they have done to the Mets and their fans….., well, that is another issue.
  • Des February 8, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    So much innuendo, so few facts, so much irrelevancy. You say you’re not a lawyer, so why do you claim to know their motivations? Let me remind you the case is not about what they have done to the Mets or their fans. That’s a fan’s perspective, not a legal issue. That doesn’t count in a court of law but only makes for stirring the pot. It’s about Madoff and what were reasonable actions by Sterling. So far the playing field is tilted towards Fred and Saul.
    • Joey D. February 9, 2012 at 12:21 am

      Des,

      I did not claim nor suggest anything other than the motives of the lawyers involved, their tactics and the injection of moral issues. Regarding the case itself, I was being impartial. To hypothesize the Wilpons might be less confident with the upcoming trial is an opinion of what they might be feeling emotionally based on their recent Supreme Court action, not a statement about their guilt or innocence. if anything didn’t I suggest the issue of fraud insurance might be manipulated and unfairly used against the Wilpons in order to sway jury opinion?

      Please do not insinuate I am unable to understand the difference between a civil suit that could financially ruin a family with that of a fan’s passion regarding what they are doing to his baseball team. I don’t believe anything that was said could lead to such a conclusion, unless one could not understand the last few words were intended to be humorous and thus I hope this was just an honest misunderstanding.
      • Des February 9, 2012 at 10:23 am

        Joey D. — Let’s agree to disagree. There are several reasons for my response to you, but let’s take one as an example. You said, “No doubt both Fred and Jeff had to step on many an individual to get to the point they are in the corporate world for that is the ruthless nature of big business and the only way one can survive.” This is typical left wing class warfare rhetoric. Neither of us know this to be the case, so why is it mentioned? It’s pure conjecture.
        Then you conclude with a sentence which you now say is humor. The transition is mind boggling. But now I understand your view a bit better. Thanks.

        P.S.: I never insinuated that you didn’t understand anything. That is what causes me to disagree with your position. Your sharp insight followed by your conclusions are what I find contrary to the known facts.
        • Joey D. February 9, 2012 at 10:51 am

          Des,

          We really don’t disagree on anything.

          The points made about the Wilpons having to be tough was simply a statement about the nature of the corporate world to point out that taking sides as far as good guys versus bad guys as posted by others is irrelevant in this type of situation – which is different from being guilty or innocent or even just negligant.

          It was not a left-wing rhetorical judgement of character but an assessment any corporate executive would agree with, at least in private. In the seventies David Frost was interviewing Jackie Gleason and despite how decent a person The Great One was, even Gleason openly stated that one has to rough and step on others in order to get to where he was within his own profession.

          How this can be intepreted as taking sides on the guilt, innocence or neglect of the Wilpons I do not know. As I said, I am not a lawyer and since I have no idea of the legality issues we therefore actually have nothing to disagree with as far as the civil suit. I just don’t know.
          • Des February 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm

            Joey D. — I’ve been in a Fortune 500 executive board room many times. The personalities are as varied as the number of execs in the room. So I tend not to generalize on their qualities. They are usually just very persistent, sometimes aggressive folks — but I’ve seen the same attitudes in many social situations. Will talk to you later about another subject we can agree on!!! lol.
            • Joey D. February 9, 2012 at 4:29 pm

              Hi Des,

              Maybe I got the wrong impression when Joan Crawford yelled “Don’t f&%k with me fellas” to those board members?

              Catch ya later,

              Joe
  • t agee February 8, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    I’ve heard it reported that the Wilpon’s rejected the ponzi insurance. Probably one of a dozen or more sales attempts they get hit up on everyday. If they had taken it out it could be construed as they at least had their doubts but that alone wouldn’t be enough to substantiate these charges and I’m pretty sure they rejected the insurance so what does that say?

    Too bad they didn’t purchase the insurance on some of those big contracts.
• MetsMan86 February 8, 2012 at 11:45 pm

  It’s to the point where I don’t care if the Wilpons stay or sell. I just want this done and over with (as I’m sure everyone feels the same too) so that they can get back to operating a baseball team and not balancing it with a lawsuit.
• Edwin February 9, 2012 at 1:17 am

  To the Wilpons–Will you please sell the Mets! I think I speek for the majority of Mets fans.Go home and leave us alone.We do not want you to be involve with our team any more. You have destroyed this franchise for years to come! I really do not care about your money issues.That is your business not ours.I will not support the Mets untill you leave the day to day operation to some one else who is not related to you or your family. Thanks for the memories but the time has come for this ownership to call it a day and ride into the sunset. We want the Mets to be relevent again in the city. Forcing your general manager to reduce the payroll and buy cheap is no way to run a major sport team. In business if you do not have enuf capital to compete sell the business to some one who is financially able to be a player in in a big market.You no longer have the ability nor the resources to over see and run our belove N.Y.Mets Having said all this it is time to let it go Wilpons.I repeat let the Mets go!!
• Alex68 February 9, 2012 at 7:39 am

  Well, i must say, i’ve been one of the biggest critics of the wilpons, but the way they’re fighting this makes me think they’re not as guilty as i thought they were, if i wasn’t guilty of something i’d go up to the top of the mountain and scream I AM NOT GUILTY and i’ll go through hell and bent in irder to prove my innoncence, it seems they’re doing the same, not sure whether it’s because they are not guilty or because piccard has been slipping and not presenting enough evidence. but it’s hard for me or anyone to think they’re not guilty, i mean, how else you would think money keeps coming in without any reason? i mean, somehow they HAD to know..
  • XtreemIcon February 9, 2012 at 8:22 am

    There was a reason. Sound investments. Give Madoff a lot of credit. He had every investor convinced his plan would work. Do you have a broker that invests for you? When that return comes in, do you ask questions, or do you just assume your stock went up, buy your broker some Red Label and plan your next investment?
  • Alex68 February 9, 2012 at 8:36 am

    well, if you’re a business person i am sure you’d be up to speed on everything economics, you’re not gonna invest your money and ask no questions, i understand if things go well you would not ask as much, but you’d still ask. they were getting a lot of money and never knew where it was coming from? come on, that excuse seems lame to me, trust me, a company we were dealing with fired the CEO for fraudulents profits he was investing with, how did they found out? money kept coming in even when things were slow in the market, you gotta have personal who guide you through financial status, even if you don’t know what;s going on and you invest money, specially million and million of dollars you GOTTA have someone who keeps u up to date on your financials, that’s how it works. i believe that somehow they’re guilty of what was going on and now they’re paying the price for trying to look the other way..
• Metsie February 9, 2012 at 7:58 pm

  I’m actually surprised by this move….
  All things seem to point to them winning this suit and now they have started putting the train in motion to perpetuate it long after they might win thier case!

  After losing I could understand this filing not before!
  Getting it over with ASAP would seem to be more in thier interests so I wonder if they think they are actually going to lose and are preparing for the next move!
  • Joey D. February 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Hi Metsi,

    That they were getting bad vibes about the upcoming trial was my gut feeling too.

    But that was a good point about why their lawyers would submit the motion at this point. There would be no need to pursue the matter further if acquitted of most financial responsibility before hand and they could then file an appeal with the Supreme Court after that.

    This is just an uneducated guess on my part so what I’m implying as a possibility should not be taken to me to write it in stone. For all we know there might be a deadline for submitting motions to the Supreme Court and thus the lawyers had no choice but to file the motion now to insure their clients would not have to wait a long time before they could submit it again.
    • Metsie February 9, 2012 at 9:41 pm

      Well upon further reading/searching I see this filing has little to do with the specifics of thier case and more to do with how he (Picard) determined who was a winner/loser and setting a minimum payment to some victims who took money out that was not factored into their losses in the Winner/Loser equation.

      It’s all abit sketchy what I found but it does seem to have something to do along those lines.

      Picard made some formula for who would get what in funds he clawed back and this filing has to do with that and not what he is claiming against them.

      This may actually be more for getting more money back from those employee pension funds that were also invested in Madoff.

      Can’t really say but I’m sure details will eventually come out to clarify.
• Joey D. February 9, 2012 at 10:03 pm

  At this point, let’s just wait for the jury to decide everything.

  If most of us were called for jury duty and selected as potential jurors we would probably be disqualified by the defense team.