More On Legal & Compliancefrom The Advisor's Professional Library
- Nothing but the Best Execution Along with the many other fiduciary obligations owed by RIAs, firms owe a duty to seek best execution of clients transactions. If they fail to do, RIAs violate Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act.
- Agency and Principal Transactions In passing Section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act, Congress recognized that principal and agency transactions can be harmful to clients. Such transactions create the opportunity for RIAs to engage in self-dealing.
The controversy over the Mets owners’ involvement with the con man Bernie Madoff came to a swift and sudden end on Monday as a settlement was reached just before trial.
The owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, agreed to pay $162 million to the Madoff trustee Irving Picard, according to a story from MLB.com posted on the Mets’ website.
According to the story, Wilpon and Katz will not pay anything for three years.
Jury selection was scheduled to begin Monday for a trial that was to determine whether Wilpon and Katz could prove they were not "willfully blind" to Madoff's scheme, for which Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence at a North Carolina federal prison.
Judge Jed Rakoff ruled earlier this month that Wilpon and Katz would have to forfeit as much as $83 million in allegedly ill-gotten gains and go to trial over another $303 million.
The $162 million settlement figure is a total figure that includes the $83 million. Moreover, the Mets owners can recover that money through their own claims, totaling $178 million, against the Madoff estate.
"In a sense, we're now partners," David J. Sheehan, a lawyer for Picard, told The Associated Press outside the courthouse.
Picard had said that the Mets owners knew, or should have known, that Madoff's investment scheme was a fraud.
"Now I guess I can smile. ... Maybe I can take a day off," Wilpon said, according to the AP. "I am very, very pleased for ourselves and our families. This was really a team effort."
Rakoff said Picard had reviewed the evidence and would no longer pursue a claim of "willful blindness" against the defendants.