Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

What to Expect and How to Prepare: A Guide to Employing Foreign Workers in the Age of Trump

Teresa Goody Guillén Supports New SEC Nominee in Institutional Investor Article

Carolina Alonso Shares Her Journey to the Legal Profession with High School Students

​Bill Bergmann Elected Treasurer of Court of Federal Claims Bar Association; Continues Role on Advisory Council

Picard currently serves as court-appointed trustee under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), an unprecedented global recovery effort stemming from one of the largest financial frauds in U.S. history.

As SIPA Trustee, Picard’s mandate is to recover the principal stolen by Madoff to return to BLMIS customers with allowed claims. As of November 30, 2021, with the help of his BakerHostetler legal team, he has recovered or entered into agreements to recover approximately $14.5 billion, all of which will be returned to defrauded BLMIS customers. As of that date, Picard has overseen the return of more than $13.56 billion to BLMIS customers, which includes approximately $849.47 million in cash advances from SIPC. (For more information on the liquidation, visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.madofftrustee.com">www.madofftrustee.com</a>.)

In addition to serving as a court-appointed trustee for securities brokerage house liquidations under SIPA more than 10 times, Picard has also served as counsel to trustees under SIPA, counsel for Chapter 11 creditors' committees, SEC receiver in a Ponzi scheme case, and disbursing agent. In 1979, Picard was appointed as the Department of Justice's first U.S. Trustee for the Southern District of New York, a position he held for nearly three years. From 1976 through 1979, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Picard is ranked in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, where he has been described as "extremely intelligent, a great analytical thinker" (Chambers USA 2014), and he is listed in The Best Lawyers in America® in Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law.

The Madoff liquidation continues to be a topic of global interest. Picard has been tapped by leading news organizations to discuss the groundbreaking – and heartbreaking – case and to shed light on what the world can learn from it. With this Trusteeship, Picard and the case have come into an international spotlight, and have been widely reported on by major media including CBS’ 60 Minutes, ABC Nightly News, Bloomberg TV, NPR, CNBC, Fox Business, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Financial Times, Reuters, USA Today, Forbes and many others.

core/freeform

LL.M., New York University School of Law, 1967

J.D., Boston University School of Law, 1966

B.S., University of Pennsylvania, 

<ul>
<li>Lawdragon
<ul>
<li>500 Leading Global Bankruptcy and Restructuring Lawyers (2024)</li>
<li>500 Leading U.S. Bankruptcy and Restructuring Lawyers (2023)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The Legal 500 United States
<ul>
<li>Recommended in Dispute Resolution &#8211; International Litigation (2018 to 2019)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Chambers USA: Bankruptcy/Restructuring in New York
<ul>
<li>Band 4 (2013 to 2020)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The Best Lawyers in America®
<ul>
<li>New York: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law (2013 to 2025)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Martindale-Hubbell: AV Preeminent</li>
<li>New York Metro &#8220;Super Lawyer&#8221; (2009 to 2019)</li>
<li>Benchmark Litigation &#8220;Litigation Star&#8221; (2014)</li>
<li>Boston University School of Law Silver Shingle Award for &#8220;Service to the Profession&#8221; (2014)</li>
</ul>

New York

Hundreds of BakerHostetler Attorneys Honored as 2023 Best Lawyers, Ones to Watch and Lawyers of the Year

Second Circuit Reverses Lower Courts, Preserves Madoff Trustee’s Ability To Pursue $3.75 Billion of Stolen Customer Property

191 BakerHostetler Attorneys Named in 2022 “Best Lawyers” List; 10 Recognized as “Lawyer of the Year”

Statement from Irving Picard, Trustee, and BakerHostetler, Counsel to the Trustee, on the Death of Bernie Madoff

Firm, Madoff Team Earn Prestigious Award for Significant Litigation

BakerHostetler Attorneys Make Significant Gains in The Legal 500 Annual Guide

Chambers and Partners USA Honors 127 Attorneys and 43 Practice Areas in 2019 Guide

Chambers and Partners USA Honors 118 Attorneys and 45 Practice Areas in 2018 Guide

150 BakerHostetler Attorneys Named 2016 Super Lawyers; 91 Named Rising Stars

Press Release: Recovery Agreement Reached with Defender Feeder Fund

Bloomberg’s article “Madoff Victims to Get $322 Million in Trustee Payout” acknowledges BakerHostetler attorneys at announcement of fifth distribution plans

CNBC reports on BakerHostetler and the Madoff Recovery Initiative in article Madoff Recoveries Top $10 Billion With New Settlement, “… an amount virtually no one thought possible”

The Associated Press reports on BakerHostetler and the Madoff Recovery Initiative recoveries of $10.5 billion

BLMIS Interest Claims Questioned by Second Circuit in Law360 article naming SIPA Trustee and BakerHostetler

Law360 story on Bankruptcy Court’s favorable decision re: Solus and Optimal names SIPA Trustee and BakerHostetler attorneys

BakerHostetler talks with USA Today about the SIPA Trustee’s fourth pro rata interim distribution; states Madoff Recovery Initiative nears $6 billion in distributions to allowed claimants

National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees Supports SIPA Trustee and his BakerHostetler Counsel in Second Circuit 546(e) appeal

Law360 article on SCOTUS Request for DOJ Opinion on SIPA Trustee’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari names BakerHostetler attorneys

BakerHostetler’s settlement with JPMorgan Chase and the ongoing Madoff Recovery Initiative Discussed on National Public Radio’s All Things Considered

BakerHostetler attorneys’ work on Madoff Liquidation Second Circuit Appeal cited by Law360

BakerHostetler appears on NPR’s All Things Considered to discuss Madoff Recovery Initiative; host Robert Siegel interviews SIPA Trustee Irving Picard and his Chief Counsel David Sheehan

Madoff Recovery Initiative surpasses $5 billion in distributions to allowed claimants; CNBC’s Scott Cohn discusses latest recovery with BakerHostetler’s SIPA Trustee Irving Picard and his Chief Counsel David Sheehan

Madoff Recovery Initiative Marks Fourth Anniversary … Moves into Fifth Year Still Building Recovery Momentum

BakerHostetler’s work recovering more than half of the losses in the Madoff Ponzi scheme featured on WNYC in interview on The Brian Lehrer Show

Press Release: Second Interim Distribution of Recovered Funds to Madoff Claim Holders

Law360 article on Bankruptcy Court approval of $2.4 Billion Distribution Recognizes BakerHostetler Attorneys

Press Release: United States Supreme Court Denies Certiorari, Upholding Net Equity Decision in BLMIS Liquidation

The Wall Street Journal showcases BakerHostetler and the “unprecedented magnitude” of the global recovery efforts in article “The Madoff Liquidation, Three Years Later”

Press Release: Initial Interim Distribution of Recovered Funds to Madoff Claims Holders

BakerHostetler attorneys working on Madoff liquidation recognized in Law360 article on key Second Circuit decision

BakerHostetler attorneys working on Madoff liquidation recognized in Law360 article on key Bankruptcy Court decision

The New York Times reports on BakerHostetler’s negotiation and settlement with the Picower Estate for $5 billion in the SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

Restructuring and Bankruptcy

Business

Global Fraud and International Asset Tracing and Recovery

<ul>
<li>The following key reported decisions are the result of the litigation activities conducted by BakerHostetler teams as counsel to Irving H. Picard, the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS):
<ul>
<li>In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 654 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2011)</li>
<li>Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 424 B.R. 122 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) 
On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States denied two petitions for writ of certiorari brought by objecting parties against the SIPA Trustee’s net equity methodology. The SIPA Trustee&#8217;s approach had been, without exception, upheld by all lower courts. On March 1, 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s motion for an order denying customer claims for amounts listed on the last BLMIS customer statements and affirming the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s determination of net equity. In August 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s use of the &#8220;cash in, cash out&#8221; net equity formula for the liquidation of BLMIS. Petitions for a panel rehearing of that decision were denied. This led to the filing of the petitions for writ of certiorari by certain appellants. With the Supreme Court&#8217;s announcement of the denial of the petitions for writ, the appeals process concluded regarding the net equity issue.</li>
<li>Rosenman Family, LLC v. Picard, 395 Fed. Appx. 766 (2d Cir. 2010) 
On January 1, 2009, Rosenman Family, LLC filed a complaint seeking the return of $10 million deposited only 10 days before BLMIS collapsed. The SIPA Trustee moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Rosenman Family LLC was a BLMIS &#8220;customer&#8221; as defined under SIPA and could recover only through the customer claims process. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Rosenman complaint and both the District Court and the Second Circuit affirmed that dismissal, finding that Rosenman&#8217;s $10 million deposit was property of the BLMIS estate, and that the timing of the deposit was irrelevant.</li>
<li>Kruse v. Picard, 708 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2013)</li>
<li>Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 454 B.R. 285 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) 
To be deemed a customer, as defined by SIPA, a claimant must have an account in his/her own name at the bankrupt broker-dealer in order to qualify for SIPA protections and benefits. On June 11, 2010, the SIPA Trustee filed a motion to affirm his determination in the BLMIS liquidation. The motion addressed claimants who had invested in BLMIS indirectly through 16 so-called feeder funds. On June 28, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court affirmed the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s treatment of the feeder-fund claimants, finding that their investments in the feeder funds could not be termed as individual accounts at BLMIS, and that the SIPA Trustee was right to deny their claims for SIPA protection. Twenty-seven notices of appeal were filed with the District Court, and on January 4, 2012, the Court upheld the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s position. On January 6, 2012, four appeals were taken to the Second Circuit and on February 22, 2013, the Second Circuit affirmed the decisions of the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court.</li>
<li>Picard v. Flinn Investments, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136627 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011) 
Flinn Investments filed a motion to dismiss the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s complaint, disputing whether the SIPA Trustee may, consistent with non-bankruptcy law, avoid transfers that BLMIS purportedly made in order to satisfy antecedent debts. The complaint also cited the United States Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in Stern v. Marshall and questioned the authority of the Bankruptcy Court&#8217;s &#8220;judicial power&#8221; to resolve the fraudulent transfer claims, before and after final resolutions. On December 19, 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement and stipulated to the dismissal of the action, which was so ordered by the District Court on January 9, 2012.</li>
<li>Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Jacqueline Green Rollover Account, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104024 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2012) 
On November 14, 2011, the SIPA Trustee filed a motion seeking affirmation of his determination that participants in ERISA plans were not BLMIS &#8220;customers&#8221; as defined by SIPA and affirmed in other court rulings. On or around January 17, 2012, approximately 18 opposition briefs to the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s ERISA motion were filed and certain claimants also filed motions to withdraw the reference from the Bankruptcy Court to the District Court, which were granted.  On July 25, 2012, the District Court affirmed the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s position, and found that the ERISA claimants were not &#8220;customers&#8221; under SIPA because they did not deposit money directly with BLMIS for the purchase of securities and did not own the assets of the ERISA plans that were deposited with BLMIS. No appeal was taken.</li>
<li>Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re: Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec.) 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) 
On October 12, 2012, the SIPA Trustee filed a motion seeking affirmation of his position that customer claims under SIPA should not include Time-Based Damages, which was supported by SIPC in a Memorandum of Law filed the same day. Approximately 1,200 objections have been raised regarding the &#8220;Time-Based Damages Issue,&#8221; in which certain claimants assert that customer claims should be recalculated with an interest factor or a constant dollar adjustment. Most commonly, the objectors seek an increase in their claims based on the time they were invested with BLMIS, using the New York State prejudgment rate of 9 percent per annum, lost opportunity cost damages, or the consumer price index to take inflation into account.  On September 10, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s motion and affirmed his denial of time-based damages adjustments to customer claims. That decision is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Until a final, unappealable order is reached on the issue of time-based damages, the SIPA Trustee must hold a court-ordered reserve of approximately $1.375 billion.</li>
<li>Picard v. Chais, 445 B.R. 206 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) 
The SIPA Trustee has commenced numerous actions to enjoin third-party lawsuits that seek to circumvent the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s avoidance actions. On May 1, 2009, the SIPA Trustee commenced such an avoidance action against Stanley Chais and Pamela Chais, certain members of their family, and a number of related trusts and entities seeking the return of more than $1.3 billion under SIPA, the Bankruptcy Code, the New York Fraudulent Conveyance Act, and other applicable laws in connection with certain transfers of property by BLMIS to or for the benefit of these defendants. In January 2012, the SIPA Trustee commenced an action to enjoin third-party lawsuits.  On April 2, 2012, certain of the Chais Defendants moved to withdraw the reference to the District Court on several grounds, and the motions were granted. On July 18, 2012, the Court ordered the parties in both actions to participate in a joint mediation. The parties are still engaged in follow-up discussions in furtherance of the mediation.</li>
<li>Picard v. Fox, 429 B.R. 423 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) 
Among the injunction actions sought by the SIPA Trustee are actions to enforce the automatic stay established by the Bankruptcy Code and related District Court stays, and to enjoin third-party actions seeking to circumvent the orderly claims process established by the SIPA Trustee. Picard v. Fox seeks to enjoin third-party actions that were commenced to prevent the SIPA Trustee&#8217;s $5 billion settlement with the estate of Jeffry Picower. The Bankruptcy Court&#8217;s automatic stay and the December 15, 2008 stay order of the District Court were upheld and the Fox third-party actions were declared void. On January 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement and granted the requested permanent injunction. On March 26, 2012, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court&#8217;s opinion in Fox and approved the settlement, ruling that the Fox plaintiffs were properly enjoined because they jeopardized the estate&#8217;s ability to recover fraudulently transferred assets. The Fox Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the Second Circuit on April 24, 2012. The parties are awaiting a decision.</li>
<li>Picard v. Cohmad Securities, 418 B.R. 75 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 
On June 22, 2009, the SIPA Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against Cohmad Securities Corporation and several of its executives and other related defendants seeking the return of more than $245 million under SIPA, the Bankruptcy Code, the New York Fraudulent Conveyance Act, and other applicable law. The complaint seeks to recover the fictitious profits withdrawn by the Cohmad defendants and the return of commissions and fees transferred directly from BLMIS. The Cohmad defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were denied on August 1, 2011, based on the finding that the transfer amounts in excess of their principal were not transferred for reasonably equivalent value, and that the defendants lacked good faith in receiving commissions from Madoff. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h5>Prior Trusteeships under the SIPA</h5>
<ul>
<li>Jay W. Kaufmann &amp; Company, Bankr. S.D.N.Y., No. TP 84-70064A(BRL)</li>
<li>Norbay Securities, Inc., Bankr. E.D.N.Y., No. 186-0174-353</li>
<li>Investors Center Inc., Bankr. E.D.N.Y., No. 089-0017-21</li>
<li>Faitos &amp; Co., Inc., Bankr. E.D.N.Y., No. 191-1085-260</li>
<li>U.S. Equity Management Corp., Bankr. S.D.N.Y., No. 95-1284A(CB)</li>
<li>Hanover, Sterling &amp; Co., Ltd., Bankr. S.D.N.Y., No. 96-8396A(REG)</li>
<li>Euro-Atlantic Securities, Inc., Bankr. S.D.N.Y., No. 98-9304A(BRL)</li>
<li>Klein Maus &amp; Shire, Inc., Bankr. S.D.N.Y., No. 00-8193A(AJG)</li>
<li>Montrose Capital Management Ltd, Bankr. S.D.N.Y., No. 01-8170A(CB)</li>
<li>Park South Securities, LLC, Bankr. S.D.N.Y., No. 03-8024A(RDD)</li>
</ul>
<h5>Counsel to Trustees under the SIPA</h5>
<ul>
<li>John Franklin &amp; Associates, Inc., Bankr. E.D.N.Y., No. 886-0226-20</li>
<li>Austin Securities, Inc., Bankr. E.D.N.Y., No. 05-1144-DEM</li>
</ul>
<h5>Post-Confirmation Consultant to Court on Trustee’s Conduct of Chapter 11 Case</h5>
<ul>
<li>In re Perret d/b/a Hill Haven Farm, Bankr. N.D.N.Y., No. 82-10055 (JEB)</li>
</ul>
<h5>Receiver and Disbursing Agent</h5>
<ul>
<li>Receiver, Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Peter Bloom, et al., S.D.N.Y., No. 88 Civ. 0201 (MBM)</li>
<li>Disbursing Agent, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Klein Maus &amp; Shire, Inc., et al., S.D.N.Y., No. 99 Civ. 3424 (RWS)</li>
</ul>

Irving H. Picard

Irving H. Picard

Experience

Recognitions and Memberships

Insights and News

Prior Positions

Credentials

Areas of Focus

Services

Featured Insights