SIPA Trustee Picard speaks during a news conference in New York, announcing the return of $7.2 billion from the estate of Madoff insider Picower to settle civil claims for victims of Madoff's ponzi scheme

500 Madoff victims want Irving Picard to resign


I missed this yesterday (Wilpon PR people! Where was my head’s up email?!), but the Daily News reports that 500 of Bernie Madoff’s victims wants Irving Picard — the guy who is supposed to be suing to recover money to benefit these victims — to be replaced as trustee.

The reason? According to the lawyer representing these victims, Picard has been dishonest and has withheld information.  The filing specifically cites a settlement Picard reached with a Madoff co-conspirator. I’ve not seen the filing and the Daily News is less than 100% clear about what the victims are alleging, but you would expect to see a filing like this if victims felt that the trustee did not use his best efforts in landing the settlement or did not get enough money out of it.  You would not expect victims to argue that, say, the trustee has overreached and landed too great a recovery.

Yet, despite this, the Daily News then pivots to multiple comments from politicians — most notably Congressmen Peter King and Gene Ackerman — who accuse Picard of being overzealous in going after the Wilpons and the Mets. It seems to me, however, that such claims are not similar to the claims of victims who think that Picard was not zealous enough in recouping their losses. Which is it?

But there is a common thread: dishonesty. The victims claim that Picard withheld information that would have helped them. The Wilpons and their surrogates claimed in their recent motion to dismiss that Picard withheld information that would have harmed his case.  Despite the differences between the victims’ and the Wilpons’ positions, that’s a claim that is worth watching and with which the court will now occupy itself.

One additional note: over at Amazin’ Avenue, Matthew Callan asks why this didn’t get picked up by more people yesterday:

This morning, most of the Mets news centers around Times story that claims the Mets have suffered significant financial losses in the last few years–as much as $50 million in 2010 alone. A big story, definitely, one I’ve heard and seen discussed in multiple media. But the Picard-must-resign story remains curiously unexplored by anyone outside the News.

This gives weight to my conspiracy theory (put forward earlier this week) that the harsh treatment the Wilpons have received from the press in re: Madoff has little to do with justice or financial malfeasance and more to do with raking them over the coals for the team’s performance. Because otherwise, a call for Picard’s resignation would have to be big news. Even if you think the News is totally in the tank for the Wilpons, it’s a story that at least deserves investigation and comment, if only to dismiss it. Doesn’t it? Or am I the only nut who thinks so?

I’ll grant that there is a lot of Mets schadenfreude going on with this story and that — hey — when the story isn’t about something dreadful happening to the Wilpons, some people turn their receptors off.  I’d submit, however, that there is a less conspiratorial reason for this: the Picard-must-go story is only tangentially-related to the Mets.

Rather, it’s about a dispute between Picard and his clients related to a deal that has nothing to do with the Wilpons or the Mets, the grandstanding and irrelevant quotes of Peter King notwithstanding.  While I noted above that there is at least one link — Picard’s alleged disingenuousness — it’s a tenuous link based more on overarching case themes, not the hard news of the day. As a lawyer I find this stuff interesting and relevant, but you can’t look at this story and say, in simple terms, that it affects the Mets in a direct, reportable way. Not yet anyway.

Anyway, that’s my theory.  If the Mets are front-and-center, it gets coverage. If not, it’s simply not a sexy story outside the business and/or legal press.

Kenny Lofton, Carlos Baerga to throw out first pitches in Games 1 and 2

CLEVELAND - OCTOBER 05:  Kenny Lofton #7 of the Cleveland Indians runs to first base against the New York Yankees during Game Two of the American League Divisional Series at Jacobs Field on October 5, 2007 in Cleveland, Ohio.  (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)
Getty Images
1 Comment

Major League Baseball just announced the details for the ceremonial and off-field stuff in connection with Games 1 and 2 of the World Series. The one most people were wondering about was the ceremonial first pitch. Sorry, Charlie Sheen fans. Sorry fans of “Major League” in general. Two real baseball stars are handing first pitch duties: Kenny Lofton before Game 1, Carlos Baerga for Game 2.

Lofton needs no introduction. He should be a Hall of Famer but is criminally overlooked, perhaps because he bounced around to a lot of different clubs. He made his name in Cleveland, however, doing three separate tours with the Indians, leading the AL in stolen bases for five straight years early in his career and putting up a line of .300/.375/.426 in ten seasons on the shores of Lake Erie.

Baerga played for the Tribe between 1990 and 1996 and was, for a time, quite the superstar, even if people don’t talk about him much anymore. His career fell off pretty quickly in that way that often happens for second basemen and/or stars who end up on the Mets, but there was a time when he was perhaps the biggest star on some excellent Indians teams. People had “will Carlos Baerga be a Hall of Famer?” conversations and stuff. The mid-90s were a special time.

Beyond the first pitches, the National Anthem will be sung by Rachel Platten before Game 1 and by the group Locash before Game 2. As I am an old man out of touch with most things, I have no idea who they are, but I am sure their fans are passionate and their renditions of the Anthem will be fine and non-controversial. Fox, MLB and the folks at major record labels are pretty good about that sort of thing and everyone will be especially vigilant in light of what happened with that Canadian tenors group at the All-Star Game. If nothing else, I bet you pick up the check for the Anthem performance after the song, and not before these days.

I guess the White Sox don’t count

CHICAGO - APRIL 04: General Manager Ken Williams of the Chicago White Sox shows off his World Series Championship ring during ceremonies prior to the start of a game against the Cleveland Indians on April 4, 2006 at U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
Getty Images

I realize everyone is super excited about the Cubs being in the World Series for the first time since 1945, with the chance to win it for the first time since 1908. But you’d think folks would remember that it’s just the Cubs — and not Chicago as a whole — who have been away from the Fall Classic for so long.

I know their recent struggles makes it seem like a long, long time ago, but the White Sox won the World Series in 2005. They were in the World Series in 1959 too. You wouldn’t know that, though, if you looked at some prominent media outlets:





I understand the impulse to tell the “a whole city is coming together!” story every time stuff like this happens, but there are a lot of White Sox fans in Chicago. A good number of them don’t give a crap about the Cubs. Many even resent them for being the glory franchise in the city in the eyes of many. They certainly don’t feel like there’s a championship drought afoot, and I imagine they’re somewhat cranky about having their team’s glory plastered over like this.