5 responses to “March 26 Webcast — Examining the Bankruptcy Trustee’s Controversial “Clawback” Tool”

  1. Is there a fee?

  2. While it is unfair for those who innocently took out money and now may have to return it – it is equally unfair for those who never took out anything, and now will get nothing back. This is very difficult – if you have two individuals who each put in $100k 10 years ago – one took out 150k and has $100k remaining – the other took out nothing and the account is worth $300k. Is it fair that each put in the same amount – one got back $150k (50k more than they put in) and the other got out nothing. Why not share the $50k excess – that is what clawback is all about.

  3. emma dee’s post describes an ideal of fairness when the reality is much more complicated…

    First, in prior clawback cases, the attorneys have taken over 60% of the money while it is supposedly being redistributed to victims more “fairly.”

    Second, is it fair when in emma dees example, the first investor has assets of only the $100k remaining, while the second investor that suposedly lost all is actually a multi-millionaire whose investment loss of $300k is a drop in the bucket? Is it fair to clawback 50% of all the first investor has left in life to benefit the millionaire investor?

    Third, is it fair that only US residents get clawed back because the large overseas investors are not subject to US laws? Will these overseas investors get the benefit of clawback proceeds without having to surrender any money?

    Fourth, is it fair to pit one victim against another simply because the SEC gave Madoff a clean bill of health through at least six examinations, thus defacto endorsing the fraud and luring more victims into it?

    Fifth, is it fair to the entire US financial system when investors have to worry not just that the SIPC “insurance” on their brokerage accounts might not be worth the paper it’s printed on, but also that withdrawals can be clawed back if it turns out that the SEC has failed yet again and perhaps Schwab or Fidelity turn out to be ponzi schemes.

  4. Thank you for an informative webcast.
    Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this entire debacle. My only fear is that the trustee may use clawbacks to ‘divide and conquer’ the victims. I truly hope that does not happen. We have had so much taken from us already and to take the bonds that have been created between us would be another assault on us all.

    I would also like to thank you for acknowledging the support group we’ve established (bernardmadoffvictims.org) in hopes of reaching other victims that may also need support.

    With appreciation,
    Ronnie Sue Ambrosino

  5. GORDON SEEMS TO THINK IT IS MORE EQUITABLE TO CLAWBACK MORE JUST BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL HAD MORE INVESTED. I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE! SUPPOSE SOMEONE HAS MORE INVESTED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEY HAVE, POSSIBLY THEIR ENTIRE LIFE SAVINGS? ALSO, SHOULD AN INDIVIDUAL BE PUNISHED JUST BECAUSE HE/SHE HAS WORKED HARD ALL THEIR LIFE AND SAVED THEIR MONEY.
    THIS IS WHAT IS DONE IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES!
    IF THERE ARE ARE CLAWBACKS, AT LEAST EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY.
    ALSO, FOR CLAWBACKS TO OCCUR, THERE HAS TO BE A TEAM OF ATTORNEYS TAHT ARE PAID VERY HIGH HOURLY RATES. THIS EATS UP A LARGE AMOUNT OF THE MONEY.
    I FEEL THE SEC SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY ALL ATTORNEY FEES. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO KEEP THIS TYPE OF FRAUD FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHY NOT CLAWBACK SOME MONEY FROM THE SEC?
    ALSO, THE GOVERNMENT HAS BAILED OUT NUMEROUS COMPANIES THAT WOULD HAVE FAILED, AIG ETC.
    WHY NOT BAIL OUT INVESTORS IN THESE TYPE CASES. THIS WOULD DIRECTLY HELP OUT CITIZENS, NOT LARGE POORLY MANAGED COMPANIES.
    I AM A STANFORD VICTIM AND STAND TO LOSE THE MAJORITY OF WHAT I HAVE WORKED TO EARN AND SAVE MY ENTIRE LIFE.