Sunday, August 23, 2009
Madoff and Stoneridge
"The court-appointed official in charge of recovering money for Bernard Madoff's investors is suing his wife Ruth, for at least $44.8 million, claiming she lived a 'life of splendor' on the gains from the fraud perpetrated by her husband. Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee, alleged that 68-year-old Ruth Madoff [RM] 'knew or should have known' that vast sums of money she recieved from heer husband's investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, rightly belonged to the firm and to her husband's customers. ... Federal investigtors recently concluded there is no physical evidence that Mrs. Madoff actively participated in or concealed her husband's fraud, according to people familiar with the situation", Patrick Fitzgerald at the WSJ, 30 July 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124889554637990959.html.
I hope RM wins her case on a 12-b6 motion. Why? Under Stoneridge, RM has no liability, my 26 January 2008 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/01/supreme-injustice.html. Under cases like Halberstam, she would.