As of May 6, 2015:
TOTAL RECEIVED CLAIMS
DENIED CLAIMS (THIRD PARTY)
DETERMINED (NO CLAIM)
DEEMED DETERMINED PENDING LITIGATION
TOTAL VALUE OF ALLOWED CLAIMS
All amounts approximate
The Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) Trustee and his counsel are governed by the SIPA process, which includes:
Claims Procedures Order
On December 23, 2008, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered the Claims Procedures Order that specified the procedures for the filing, determination and adjudication of customer claims in the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS). This order specified that BLMIS customers would share pro rata in customer property, based on their net equity.
The last date for filing customer claims under SIPA and the Claims Procedure Order was July 2, 2009. The SIPA Trustee published notices to BLMIS customers in all major newspapers regarding the liquidation, mailed thousands of customer claim forms to those who requested them and made request forms available for download via this website.
Once a claim is determined, a letter of determination is sent to the claimant by the SIPA Trustee. Every six months, the SIPA Trustee files a detailed interim report on the status of claims. In addition, claims numbers are updated weekly on this website.
If a claimant disputes the SIPA Trustee's determination, the claimant may object and request a hearing before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. This must be done within 30 days of the date of the determination letter unless the time is extended. If the claimant fails to request a hearing within those 30 days or fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the SIPA Trustee's determination is final.
Customer claims may be transferred in full in the BLMIS liquidation proceeding. On November 10, 2010, the Court entered an order approving certain uniform procedures and forms with respect to the trading of claims. Notice of a claim transfer must be provided in accordance with those procedures.
The SIPA Trustee does not take a position with regard to claims trading.
General Creditor Claims
All “good faith” BLMIS customers were defrauded. Regardless of whether their claims for distributions from the Customer Fund are denied or approved, their claims are also deemed to be general creditor claims against the General Estate. Other creditors in the liquidation, such as service providers and vendors, also have claims against the BLMIS General Estate. Once the SIPA Trustee fully satisfies the net equity claims of BLMIS customers, the next step in the BLMIS liquidation is to distribute customer property in accordance with the other priorities in SIPA. After customer net equity claims, the next priority is to distribute customer property to SIPC as subrogee. Thereafter, any customer property remaining becomes part of the General Estate.
Once those priorities are satisfied, the next step is to allocate recoveries to the General Estate and to distribute those recoveries pro rata to general creditors in the order of priority established in the Bankruptcy Code.
Net Equity Methodology
The SIPA Trustee determined that he would calculate a customer's net equity based on the real assets that customers lost to Madoff's scheme: the cash deposited, less any amount withdrawn (the "Net Investment" or "Cash In/Cash Out" Method).
Certain claimants disagreed with the SIPA Trustee as to the definition of "net equity" in the Madoff fraud and how that term should be applied to determine the amount of the valid customer claim of each claimant. They argued that the SIPA Trustee should have calculated their net equity – which determines their percentage of recovered customer property – based on the amounts shown on the final customer statements issued by BLMIS in November 2008 (the "Last Statement Method").
The SIPA Trustee rejected that method, as those statements were fiction.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
After the filing of a number of objections, the SIPA Trustee filed a motion with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking an order affirming his use of the Net Investment Method in calculating "net equity."
Both SIPC and the SEC submitted briefs supporting the SIPA Trustee's motion.
A hearing was held at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on February 2, 2010.
On March 1, 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted the SIPA Trustee’s motion for an order denying customer claims for amounts listed on the BLMIS last customer statement and affirming the SIPA Trustee’s determination of net equity and entered a memorandum decision. On March 8, 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order implementing that decision.
The memorandum by the Honorable Judge Burton R. Lifland noted that “[a]ny dollar paid to reimburse a fictitious profit is a dollar no longer available to pay claims for money actually invested.” Further, the order noted that those claimants who withdrew funds from their BLMIS accounts that exceeded their initial investments “would receive more favorable treatment by profiting from the principal investments of [those claimants who have withdrawn less money than they deposited], yielding an inequitable result.”
Finally, the memorandum noted that the Net Investment Method, unlike the Last Statement Method, allowed The SIPA Trustee to “unwind, rather than legitimiz[e], the fraudulent scheme.”
Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals Certified
Certain claimants elected to appeal the decision. The appeal was certified directly to the United States Court of Appeals.
On September 20, 2010, both the SIPA Trustee and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) filed briefs in support of the "Cash In/Cash Out" net equity methodology.
On September 21, 2010, the SEC filed an amicus brief that supported the SIPA Trustee's Net Investment Method, asserting that it is required by SIPA and is consistent with precedent.
Oral arguments were held on March 3, 2011 before a panel of three Justices of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On August 16, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order affirming the decision of United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York as "legally sound," noting that "Use of the Last Statement Method in this case would have the absurd effect of treating fictitious and arbitrarily assigned paper profits as real and would give legal effect to Madoff's machinations."
Petition for Panel Rehearing, or, in the Alternative, Rehearing en banc Filed
A petition was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc.
Panel Rehearing or Rehearing en banc Denied
On November 8, 2011, the petition was denied.
Petitions for Writs of Certiorari Filed with Supreme Court of the United States
Three petitions for writs of certiorari were filed with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking review of the United States Court of Appeals decision. The SIPA Trustee submitted briefs in opposition on March 9, 2012. SIPC submitted briefs in opposition on March 9, 2012, and the SEC submitted a brief in opposition on May 24, 2012. On June 4, 2012, one of the writs of certiorari was withdrawn, a result of settlement with the SIPA Trustee.
Petitions for Writs of Certiorari Denied – Net Equity Upheld
On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court entered an order that it refused to grant the petitions, thereby upholding the net equity methodology, ending the appeals process and resolving the matter.
On August 22, 2012, the SIPA Trustee’s July 26, 2012 motion for a second pro rata interim distribution was approved by the Honorable Burton R. Lifland of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
The amount of the distribution was dependent on several issues, including the issue of whether BLMIS claimants are entitled to “time-based damages” or payments based on the time elapsed while customer monies were deposited with BLMIS. More than 1,200 objections have been filed based on the issue of time-based damages, with some claimants seeking as much as 9 percent interest. In its order, the Court instructed the SIPA Trustee to reserve 3 percent for the time-based damages issue. Under that order, the SIPA Trustee held approximately $1.449 billion in reserves.
On September 10, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved the SIPA Trustee’s motion to deny time-based damages adjustments to customer claims. That decision was appealed by objecting parties on September 24, 2013 and on the same day an order was filed by the Bankruptcy Court certifying the order of September 10, 2013 for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. The appeal was accepted by the Second Circuit on January 22, 2014, and oral arguments were heard on Tuesday, October 14, 2014.
On February 20, 2015, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the decision of the Bankruptcy Court that claimants in the SIPA liquidation of BLMIS are not entitled to time-based damages. On April 15, 2015, the SIPA Trustee filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking to allocate $1.249 billion which had been held in reserve related to the time based damages issue, to the BLMIS Customer Fund and requesting authorization for a sixth pro rata interim distribution from the Customer Fund to BLMIS customers with allowed claims. A hearing has been scheduled for May 28, 2015. If the motion is approved, $904 million will be available for immediate distribution to customers with allowed claims and approximately $345 million will be held in reserve for claims that are “deemed determined” pending the resolution of litigation and other issues. The only obstacle that could stand in the way of this additional distribution if the defendants petition the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. The SIPA Trustee is hopeful that further delay will be viewed as pointless and that no petition will be filed.