Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-01029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 31
In Picard v. RAR, Judge Furman attached jury-selection materials and a draft jury charge without deciding the parties’ dispute.
The order concerns Irving H. Picard, RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd., and the jurors selected or considered for the trial by providing the jury questionnaire and draft jury instructions.
What happened
Irving H. Picard, acting as trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, sued RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. The case concerns money transfers that Picard seeks to recover for customers who lost principal investments in the Madoff scheme.
The March 4, 2022 order attached the questionnaire used during jury selection and the draft jury instructions considered at the March 4 charge conference. The instructions told jurors that the remaining issue was whether the relevant business or bank accounts belonged to the LLC, which would determine whether the transfers involved the debtor’s property.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not issue a verdict or decide whether Picard or RAR was correct in this order. The materials instructed the jury on the evidence, the burden of proof, deliberations, and two questions concerning ownership of the business and accounts.
The detailed version
- Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-01029
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 4, 2022
What the Order Did
The court ordered that two exhibits be attached to the order: (1) the juror questionnaire used during voir dire, or questioning of prospective jurors, on March 3, 2022; and (2) the draft jury charge considered during the charge conference held on the record on March 4, 2022.
Case Background in the Attached Jury Charge
The attached jury charge states that Irving H. Picard is the trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. It explains that Picard brought an avoidance action under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code to recover transfers made to RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. during the two years before the LLC filed for bankruptcy. The charge states that Picard had already established the timing and actual-intent elements as a matter of law, leaving the jury to decide whether the transfers involved an interest of the debtor in property.
The parties disputed ownership of two JPMorgan Chase bank accounts identified in the charge as the 703 Account and the 509 Account. Picard argued that the accounts belonged to the LLC. RAR argued that they belonged to Bernard L. Madoff’s earlier sole proprietorship or to Madoff personally, and that the investment advisory business had not been transferred to the LLC.
Issues Submitted to the Jury
The draft verdict form asked whether the investment advisory business of Madoff’s sole proprietorship had been transferred to the LLC before December 11, 2006. If the jury answered no, it was to decide whether the two accounts were owned by the LLC when the transfers to RAR occurred between December 11, 2006, and December 11, 2008. Picard bore the burden of proving the relevant ownership issue by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the evidence had to make his position more likely than not.
What the Opinion Does Not Decide
The order itself does not state the jury’s verdict, enter judgment, or decide whether the accounts or business belonged to the LLC. It only attaches the jury-selection questionnaire and draft trial materials. Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order therefore contains no final merits disposition of Picard’s claims against RAR.
Read the full 31-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.