The battered image of Hadassah, the American women’s Zionist organization, may be harmed further by the disclosure earlier this month that its former chief financial officer was a mistress to Bernard Madoff — even as she sat on the committee that invested the charity’s funds with Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme.
But worse news may yet be in the offing.
Beyond the millions the organization reported losing with Madoff, Hadassah — and possibly other charities — may be required under a federal law to give back millions of dollars taken out of Madoff accounts, even before his firm collapsed.
The trustee in charge of recouping Madoff’s ill-gotten assets on behalf of all of his victims has pointedly refused to rule out this possibility. And a specter is haunting the halls of some of the Madoff non-profit victims — the specter of clawback.
“I have a statutory duty to treat fairly all customers, and part of that duty requires pulling together the largest possible fund of customer property from which to make payments,” said Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Securities, LLC, in a May conference call with reporters.
Tasked by a federal judge with recovering as much of Madoff’s assets as possible, Picard may seek to claw back funds from charities that reaped a net profit over the lifetime of their investments with Madoff. It is a power he has under federal law, with any recouped assets then going into a pool to be distributed to all of Madoff’s victims.
Hadassah, best known for building hospitals in Israel, is reported to have withdrawn more than $130 million over the lifetime of its Madoff account, based on its principal investment of $33 million, plus $7 million in Madoff funds that a French donor transferred to Hadassah.
In his public statements, Picard has left open the possibility that he will seek to recoup funds from charities that profited from their association with Madoff or Madoff feeder funds. Such an action would not require proof that the investor acted improperly, or even had knowledge that there was anything amiss. The charities’ “profits” are instead understood to be nothing more than money Madoff took from other investors. In such cases, the investors can be forced to return the value of any withdrawals made during the previous six years, which is the statute of limitations in New York. There is little legal recourse.
So far, the only claims that have been brought against charities in the Madoff affair have been related to accusations of wrongdoing. The Picower Foundation, which funded Limmud NY, the Jewish Outreach Institute and other initiatives, has been named as a co-defendant in a suit filed by Picard against its founder, Jeffrey Picower. The suit alleges that foundations officials “knew or should have known” that Madoff’s fund was a fraud.
Picower denies the charges. The foundation itself closed due to its losses with Madoff’s collapse. Stanley Chais, whose Chais Family Foundation also shut down after losing millions to Madoff, is the subject of a similar lawsuit, which he is also fighting, brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
But Picard has hinted strongly that his efforts will not be restricted to alleged wrongdoers.
“I have a statutory duty to … investigate and, where appropriate, go to court and seek to recover from persons or entities who recovered more than their fair share,” Picard told reporters in his May conference call. Charities invested with Madoff “will be reviewed, and we will then make determinations,” he said, though he ruled out going after charities with few assets “where it’s clear we’re not going to make any recoveries.”
In an e-mail, Kevin McCue, a spokesperson for the trustee, said, “Mr. Picard does not disclose which entities or types of entities he will attempt to recover money from.”
Among those Jewish organizations that lost investments in Madoff or Madoff feeder funds and could be reached this week, there was reluctance to address the possibility of clawbacks. While some organizations, including the American Jewish Congress, American Society for Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, and the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles, reported that they have not withdrawn amounts in excess of their principal investment, others refused to comment.
Bruce Bobbins, an external spokesperson for Yeshiva University, was unwilling to comment on whether YU had withdrawn more than the amount of its principal investment from its accounts with the Ascot Fund, a Madoff feeder fund. The Ascot Fund was run by Ezra Merkin, the chairman of the school’s investment committee. YU’s principal investment of $14.5 million had reached a purported value of $110 million by the time the scheme collapsed.
The Manhattan Jewish high school Ramaz, the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, and the Riverdale Jewish day school SAR, all of which lost money in the Madoff scheme, were also unwilling to comment.
At Hadassah, questions now also swirl around Sheryl Weinstein, the charity’s former chief financial officer, who announced that she had been having an affair with Madoff when Hadassah’s investments were made. Ms. Weinstein, who also had personal funds invested with Madoff, has come forward with a tell-all book, which, according to the Daily News, includes intimate details about Madoff’s sex life.
William Josephson, a retired partner at Fried Frank who ran the New York State Charities Bureau from 1999 until 2004, says that clawbacks of net profits from Madoff aren’t the only sorts of legal actions about which charities should be worrying. “If a charity invested directly with Madoff, and its auditors never did the elemental verification of the value of its assessments, there is a question as to whether or not it is truly innocent or in fact failed to follow due diligence standards,” he said.
In such a case, Picard could go after money the charity withdrew, even if it did not exceed what was invested. But unlike clawbacks of net profits, these actions would require a finding of negligence by the charity and could be fought in court.
Picard has wide legal discretion in deciding how to pursue Madoff funds. “The trustee has a legal obligation to maximize the estate,” says Eugene Licker, co-chair of the White Collar Criminal Defense practice at Loeb & Loeb, who is representing Stanley Chais in his suit with the SEC. “But that has to be tempered with the exercise of discretion and humanity,” he said. “If I were representing Hadassah, I would emphasize the exercise of discretion and humanity.”
Authorities on non-profits and non-profit ethics contacted by the Forward generally concur that, barring fraud, charities like Hadassah, which profited inadvertently from Madoff’s scheme, aren’t bound by an ethical responsibility to return money to be redistributed among the rest of the victims.
“I’m not sure that it poses an ethical dilemma for the charity that acted in good faith,” said David Mersky, a lecturer in Jewish philanthropy and fundraising at Brandeis University’s Hornstein Program in Jewish Professional Leadership. “I wonder if, in fact, the clawaback is reasonable [for such charities] when you put it on ethical or moral grounds. The law may have a different point of view. But the question is, does Hadassah have an ethical responsibility to return the money, and it would appear to me that that’s not the case.”
Mark Charendoff, the executive director of the Jewish Funders Network, argued that the charities shouldn’t be asked to forgo the interest that their principal would have otherwise earned during that time period. “I don’t think it’s fair to say to a not-for-profit that you should forgo the opportunity cost that this money represented,” he said. “Not everyone’s claims can be satisfied. How do you weigh opportunity cost for a not-for-profit versus the lost principal that someone else invested and is not getting back? Whose money do we assign more value to, and what’s the formula by which the state fairly allocates that money?”
Of course, the charities in question invested with Madoff in no small part because the returns they received over time far exceeded anything they could have hoped to get elsewhere —at least until they turned out to be fictitious.
“I don’t have an answer for you,” Charendoff said. “On the one hand, it’s easy. Because one would develop a mathematical formula and say for every dollar you put in, and for every year it was invested, you’re getting x amount of cents back. But for instance, for a not-for-profit, that’s money that’s being spent in the public interest. So does the state have the right to say that we’re going to favor those dollars over the dollars of other individuals because they’re being allocated in the public good? I don’t know what the answer to that is.”
Contact Josh Nathan-Kazis at feedback@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
You've successfully signed up!
That Ms. Weinstein seeks to profit from a book about her betrayals of her employer and her family is a new definition of chutzpah --
alas, nothing akin to "Son of Sam" law that could see it ain't so?
Are we not witnessing the most heinous greed and selfishness on the part of these charities, educational, and other non-profit entities? They are running around hiring lawyers, devising defenses and probably schemes to try and retain as much of the victims' money as possible. Which is as though they are saying: Forget about all the crushed lives and livelihoods of the elderly, sick, and destitue victims, our projects and programs are more important. SHAME!!! SHAME!!! Any charity that had ANY integrity or compassion would be seeking out the trustee to return money which WAS STOLEN!!! Failing that, they should be seeking the worst off of the victims and giving them whatever aid possible. DO IT TODAY!!! As this aspect of the Madoff case becomes clearer, you (non-profits) will LOSE your ability to spin-doctor your way out of the fact that you are holding stolen property from the elderly, the impoverished, and, in many cases, ill. All of you need to examine your collective conscience and realize what it is you are doing. No matter how lofty your goals and aspirations, to achieve them by accepting and grasping onto stolen goods makes your good works as dust or bile.
Mersky and Charendoff use Talmudic reasoning or sophistry when they argue that Hadassah shouldn't have to repay tens of millions of ill-gotten dollars: "On the one hand, on the other hand, etc."
Hadassah must have suspected that its spectacular profits from Madoff were cunningly obtained.
Why is there such a disproportionate amount of financial chicanery in the Jewish community?
The arguments being made by the charities are disingenuous. Anyone who profited from fraud must payback the money to the trustee. If the trustee is going to place arbitrary values on who or what company deserves to keep monies received through a Ponzi Scheme, he will be making himself a judge and jury, and not a trustee. It is not his place to decide that funding a hospital in Israel was more important than funding the survival of elderly investors in the Ponzi Scheme. Moreover, who was in the better position to detect the fraud, the immense charities with their staffs of financial advisers and accountants, or the small investors. To be fair everyone must payback everything they took out of the Ponzi Scheme above their initial investment. Only then can the maximum amount of money be recouped by the trustee and everyone receive the maximum return of the money that they lost. Any other method is merely sophistry.
Uncle Bernie damaged the Jews more than Uncle Adolf ever dreamed possible.
By their fruits ye will know them. This whole sordid mess confirms what many Goyim think about "God's Chosen".
Does this include the foreign agent, AIPAC?
I don't understand how the Forward can write that Hadassah made a profit. Hadassah lost 90 million dollars!
If American Jews had invested the billions into Israeli government bonds, they would have been better off than putting it into the hands of this Jewish crook. If millions of American Jews had put their liquid assets into strengthening the Jewish homeland, instead of chasing speculative pie in the sky, Israel wouldn't need US aid and both Israel and American Jewry would have been in better shape. We must trust in GOD, but never in people! People are never to be trusted. If God in this last century made it possible to recover at least part of our homeland, that is where all charity and due diligence investment should have been made. Yes, Madoff is the beginning of the end of the Jewish story in America, and so be it. If God is calling us home,that is where we must turn our attention to, and not follow charlatan wolves in sheep's clothing promising the impossible. It had to have ended as it did, in tragedy.
LMAO and you go girl. if these fools are stupid enough to have trusted you with their money, then now will be buying your book to help you continue your life style..... then you go girl, you deserve it all and for the fools still wanting to help you??? please call me or email me, I have a bridge to sell you.
LMAO and you go girl. if these fools are stupid enough to have trusted you with their money, then now will be buying your book to help you continue your life style..... then you go girl, you deserve it all and for the fools still wanting to help you??? please call me or email me, I have a bridge to sell you.
To God's Chosen People.....THIS IS ENTERTAINMENT.
הלכות גזילה ואבידה פרק ה א אסור לקנות דבר הגזול מן הגזלן, ואסור לסעדו על שינוייו כדי שיקנהו: שכל העושה דברים אלו וכיוצא בהן--מחזק ידי עוברי עבירה, ועובר על "ולפני עיוור, לא תיתן מכשול" (ויקרא יט,יד).
ב אסור ליהנות בדבר הגזול, ואפילו לאחר ייאוש: והוא, שיידע בוודאי שדבר זה הוא הגזילה עצמה. כיצד: ידע בוודאי שבהמה זו גזולה, אסור לרכוב עליה או לחרוש בה. [ג] גזל בית או שדה--אסור לעבור בתוכה, או להיכנס לה בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים; ואם דר בתוכה--חייב להעלות שכר לבעלים, כדין הדר בחצר חברו שלא מדעתו. גזל דקלים, ועשה מהן גשר--אסור לעבור עליו. וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
ג [ד] מי שעבר, ואכל הגזילה אחר ייאוש--פטור מלשלם. ואם אכל קודם ייאוש, ורצו הבעלים לגבות מן האוכל--גובין, שעדיין ברשותן היא; ואם רצו, גובין מן הגזלן.
ד [ה] הגוזל ומת, בין שהאכיל את הגזילה לבנים אחר ייאוש, בין שלא האכילם אלא מכרה או איבדה--אם הניח קרקע, חייבין לשלם; אבל מן המיטלטלין, אינן חייבין לשלם--שדמי הגזילה חוב הן על הגזלן, ואין המיטלטלין משתעבדין לבעל חוב.
ה [ו] כבר תיקנו הגאונים לגבות בעל חוב מן המיטלטלין, ואפילו במלווה על פה; לפיכך חייבין לשלם בין אכלו בין לא אכלו, בין נתייאשו הבעלים בין לא נתייאשו, בין מן הקרקע בין מן המיטלטלין שהניח.
ו [ז] דין הלוקח מיטלטלין מן הגזלן, כלוקח מן הגנב: אם גזלן מפורסם הוא, לא עשו בו תקנת השוק. ואם אינו מפורסם, עשו בו תקנת השוק, ונותן הנגזל ללוקח דמים שנתן, ולוקח גזילתו; וחוזר ותובע הגזלן בדמי הגזילה. ואם כבר נתייאשו הבעלים--קנה לוקח עצמה של גזילה, ואינו מחזירה.
ז [ח] אסור ליהנות מן הגזלן; ואם היה מועט שלו--אף על פי שרוב ממונו גזול, מותר ליהנות ממנו עד שייוודע בוודאי שדבר זה גזול בידו.
ח [ט] בני אדם שחזקתן גזלנין, וחזקת כל ממונן מן הגזל מפני שמלאכתן גזלנות, כגון המוכסין והליסטין--אסור ליהנות מהן, שחזקת מאכל זה שהוא גזול; ואין מצרפין דינרים מן התיבה שלהן, שהכול בחזקת גזילה.
As to Hadassah or any one else-----If the the SEC could not figure it ourt---how is anyone have the ability to figure it out. I can not believe a jury would fin d they should have known.
When IBM grew or AOL grew out of proportion did evey stockholder have a duty to investigate IBM or AOL financial books.
As far as Sheyal Weinstein and her book is concerned I think she needs her head examined---to tell the whole world her story,does she have childern,bothers an sisters, father or mother----maybe she has assets from Madoff, maybe she knows what was going on.