Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-01029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Judge Furman denied RAR’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd., whose post-trial motion was denied; and Irving H. Picard, the trustee pursuing the liquidation-related action.
What happened
Irving H. Picard, the trustee handling Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC’s liquidation, sued RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. The case went to a jury trial, and RAR later asked the court to overturn the result or hold a new trial.
RAR argued that the trial evidence differed from the evidence considered earlier on summary judgment. The court disagreed, saying the trial included many documents showing that all assets of a sole proprietorship had been transferred to the LLC as of January 1, 2001.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied RAR’s motion as meritless, and possibly frivolous. He said the evidence was overwhelming and noted that RAR could appeal, while criticizing its repeated efforts to press an argument the courts had rejected.
The detailed version
- Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-01029
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Irving H. Picard, acting as trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, brought this action against RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. After a jury trial, RAR filed a motion seeking judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected RAR’s argument that differences between the summary-judgment record and the trial record justified relief. It said the trial evidence included numerous documents that had not been presented on summary judgment, including original and amended regulatory forms, the LLC’s operating agreements, communications to regulators and other third parties, and trade confirmations.
According to the court, those documents demonstrated that all assets of the sole proprietorship had been transferred to the LLC as of January 1, 2001. The court described the trial evidence as “simply overwhelming” and stated that a Second Circuit decision in a related case nearly required judgment for the trustee even without a trial.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied RAR’s motion as meritless, “if not frivolous.” The court stated that RAR was free to appeal from the judgment but criticized its counsel for repeatedly litigating an argument that had been rejected in earlier summary-judgment proceedings, bench trials, and jury trials. The opinion states that continued efforts could become an abuse of the judicial process.
Disposition
The motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial was denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.