Close X
Attorney Spotlight

After finishing her first year as an associate at Bass, Berry & Sims, find out what advice Margaret Dodson offers to new attorneys. Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Blueprint for an IPO

Companies go public to raise capital to fuel growth, pay down debt and provide liquidity to shareholders. Although all issuers and offerings are different, the basic process of going public remains relatively constant. Blueprint for an IPO identifies the key players, details the process and identifies the obligations companies will face after going public.

Read now

Chris Lazarini Discusses Dismissal of Madoff "Winner's" ERISA Claim

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

February 1, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case in which a pension fund, a "net winner" in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, filed an ERISA action against its investment adviser seeking to recover "lost opportunity" damages from fictitious alternative investments. The court dismissed the claims, finding plaintiff lacked standing because it suffered no cognizable injuries. 

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Trustees of the Upstate New York Engineers Pension Fund vs. Ivy Asset Management, No. 15-3124 (2nd Cir., 12/8/16) 

A plaintiff who does not have a legally cognizable injury lacks standing to bring an ERISA action. 

Plaintiff is a true "net winner" in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Acting through Defendant, its investment advisor, Plaintiff opened a Madoff account in 1990. In 1998, Plaintiff began withdrawing funds from its Madoff account after Defendant concluded that Madoff's investment strategy was incoherent and his outsized returns were inconsistent with publicly available information. By the end of 2005, Plaintiff had withdrawn $33 million in "profits" from its Madoff account.

When Madoff's fraud was exposed in 2008, Plaintiff relied on the running of the statute of limitations to protect its outsized "profits" against the bankruptcy trustee's claw-back action. Seeking even more than this windfall, Plaintiff brought this ERISA action, alleging that Defendant should have closed Plaintiff's Madoff account in 1998, re-investing the then $36 million reported balance (including $31 million in "profits") elsewhere. Plaintiff sought to recover the "lost opportunity" of the fictitious alternative investments, performance fees paid to Defendant based on the reported Madoff balances, and the attorneys' fees and costs it incurred in defending against the bankruptcy trustee's claims.

Affirming the district court's dismissal, the Court of Appeals holds that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring its claims because it suffered no cognizable injury. The measure of Plaintiff's alleged loss is not based on other investors' money it could have received from Madoff. The "universally accepted rule" is that innocent investors may retain distributions from a Ponzi scheme to the extent of their investments, while distributions exceeding their investments (i.e., monies taken from other victims of the scheme) are fraudulent conveyances. No interest would be served by giving effect to Madoff's fraud, although the Court acknowledges that the statute of limitations would have allowed Plaintiff to keep the entire amount had the account been closed in 1998, just as it allowed Plaintiff to keep the $33 million in "profits" it actually took.

Here, there is no cognizable loss based on the amount of Plaintiff's actual investment with Madoff, some $6 million. Had $6 million been withdrawn from Madoff and invested elsewhere in 1998, the Court explains, there is no plausible scenario under which Plaintiff would have enjoyed returns in excess of the $33 million in "profits" Plaintiff pocketed. Even an astronomical 25% annual return from 1998 to 2005 would have left Plaintiff $11 million short of the $33 million mark. It is likewise inconceivable that the performance fees paid Defendant and attorneys' fees and costs associated with the claw-back action exceed Plaintiff's "profits." Absent an injury in fact, the Court concludes, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring the claim.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.