Irving H. Picard v. Saul B. Katz et al
Filing
90
DECLARATION of DANA M. SESHENS in Support re: 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Charles 15 Associates, Charles 15 LLC, Charles Sterling LLC, Charles Sterling Sub LLC, College Place Enterprises LLC, Coney Island Baseball Holding Company LLC, Estate of Leonard Schreier, FFB Aviation LLC, FS Company LLC, Fred Wilpon Family Trust, Arthur Friedman, Ruth Friedman, Iris J. Katz and Saul B. Katz Family Foundation, Inc., Judy and Fred Wilpon Family Foundation, Inc., Amy Beth Katz, David Katz, Dayle Katz, Gregory Katz, Howard Katz, Iris Katz, 157 J.E.S. LLC, Air Sterling LLC, BAS Aircraft LLC, Jason Bacher, Bon Mick Family Partners LP, Bon-Mick, Inc., Brooklyn Baseball Company LLC, C.D.S. Corp., Michael Katz, Saul B. Katz, Todd Katz, Katz 2002 Descendants' Trust, Heather Katz Knopf, Natalie Katz O'Brien, Mets II LLC, Mets Limited Partnership, Mets One LLC, Mets Partners, Inc., Minor 1 (REDACTED), Minor 2 (REDACTED), L. Thomas Osterman, Phyllis Rebell Osterman, Realty Associates Madoff II, Red Valley Partners, Robbinsville Park LLC, Ruskin Garden Apartments LLC, Saul B. Katz Family Trust, Michael Schreier, Deyva Schreier Arthur, See Holdco LLC, See Holdings I, See Holdings II, Sterling 10 LLC, Sterling 15C LLC, Sterling 20 LLC, Sterling Acquisitions LLC, Sterling American Advisors II LP, Sterling American Property III LP, Sterling American Property IV LP, Sterling American Property V LP, Sterling Brunswick Corporation, Sterling Brunswick Seven LLC, Sterling Dist Properties LLC, Sterling Equities, Sterling Equities Associates, Sterling Equities Investors, Sterling Heritage LLC, Sterling Internal V LLC, Sterling Jet II Ltd., Sterling Jet Ltd., Sterling Mets Associates, Sterling Mets Associates II, Sterling Mets LP, Sterling Pathogenesis Company, Sterling Third Associates, Sterling Thirty Venture LLC, Sterling Tracing LLC, Sterling Twenty Five LLC, Sterling VC IV LLC, Sterling VC V LLC, Edward M. Tepper, Elise C. Tepper, Jacqueline G. Tepper, Marvin B. Tepper, Valley Harbor Associates, Kimberly Wachtler, Philip Wachtler, Bruce N. Wilpon, Daniel Wilpon, Debra Wilpon, Fred Wilpon, Jeffrey Wilpon, Jessica Wilpon, Judith Wilpon, Richard Wilpon, Scott Wilpon, Valerie Wilpon, Wilpon 2002 Descendants' Trust, Robin Wilpon Wachtler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C PART 1, # 4 Exhibit C PART 2, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit V, # 24 Exhibit W, # 25 Exhibit X, # 26 Exhibit Y, # 27 Exhibit Z, # 28 Exhibit AA)(Seshens, Dana)
EXHIBIT J
1
1
C O N F I D E N T I A L
2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADV. PRO. NO. 08-01789 (BRL)
3
4
5
-------------------------------x
SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION
CORPORATION,
Videotaped
6
Plaintiff-Applicant,
7
8
v.
10
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT
SECURITIES, LLC,
Defendant.
-------------------------------x
In Re:
11
BERNARD L. MADOFF,
12
Rule 2004
Examination of:
Debtor.
-------------------------------x
9
ARTHUR FRIEDMAN
(Volume I)
13
14
15
TRANSCRIPT of testimony as taken by and before
16
NANCY C. BENDISH, Certified Court Reporter, RMR, CRR
17
and Notary Public of the States of New York and New
18
Jersey, at the offices of Baker & Hostetler, 45
19
Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York on Tuesday,
20
June 22, 2010, commencing at 10:11 a.m.
21
22
23
24
25
BENDISH REPORTING, INC.
Litigation Support Services
877.404.2193
www.bendish.com
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
A.
Same for the Brooklyn Cyclones.
Q.
Now that's a -- just because I'm not
from here, that's a minor league team?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Single A.
Single A?
A.
Single A, not a full season, they
7
start in June.
8
Q.
9
10
11
12
13
14
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
operations?
A.
Is it affiliated with the Mets?
Oh, yes.
We own the team.
Part of the Fund system?
Yes.
Do the Mets have other minor league
Do they have a double A?
They do, but it's an affiliation.
15
Brooklyn Cyclones is the only one that we own, but
16
we have affiliation with all levels.
17
Q.
And those, you don't have any -- the
18
affiliated minor league operations, you don't have
19
any job responsibilities with respect to those
20
entities?
21
A.
22
Q.
No.
No.
Did you provide -- let me just
23
continue with the last part of the business that you
24
identified.
25
were counting, the third or the fourth business
You identified, depending on how you
72
1
grouping for the Sterling entities as the
2
investments.
3
least in my mind, kind of Madoff and then other
4
investments.
5
good time, what were your responsibilities with
6
respect to the investments being made by Sterling
7
partners or Sterling entities with Bernard Madoff?
8
9
10
A.
Q.
A.
Under that you broke out I think, at
So, can you tell me, maybe this is a
With regard to Bernard Madoff?
Yes.
As I said, I was the liaison with the
11
Madoff firm.
12
Madoff was done through me.
13
so that whenever anybody wanted to invest money in
14
Madoff, they would send me the check, or -- it
15
usually was in the form of a check, and I would
16
forward it on to Madoff.
17
wanted to withdraw money, they would notify me,
18
either by email or letter or telephone what they
19
wanted to withdraw, from what account, when, if
20
there was an urgency, and I would, again, transmit
21
that information to Madoff.
22
23
Any dealings with the investment in
That was by design, and
And vice versa, if they
So, in every sense I was the liaison.
Q.
You said that was by design.
24
that the design?
25
A.
Why was
From, to my recollection, from day
107
1
2
Q.
Are you aware of the reasons the
decision was made?
3
A.
I would have to say that the reasons
4
were the same as why I put my money in Madoff, why
5
all of the entities, 200 plus accounts were opened
6
at Madoff, they were all the same reasoning.
7
Q.
8
9
A.
Which was what?
It was deemed to be an excellent
place to invest your money.
The returns were very
10
satisfactory and you could easily get your money out
11
of the investment.
12
It was, in every sense, a good place to invest.
13
Q.
It was a very liquid investment.
I guess -- it appears to me, from
14
looking at the records, that some of the Sterling
15
entities had accounts with Madoff, and others did
16
not.
17
18
Is that -A.
Q.
Some of the -- when you say -I'm sorry.
Some of the Sterling
19
entities opened up accounts with Madoff and put
20
money in, and other Sterling entities did not open
21
up accounts at Madoff.
22
as well?
23
24
25
A.
Q.
Is that your understanding
Yes.
Why -- and I guess what I'm trying to
understand is why, if it was a good, safe place to
108
1
invest with a good return and easy to get your money
2
out, why did some entities open accounts at Madoff
3
but not others?
4
A.
Any account -- any entity that had,
5
by its nature of the operation, accumulated funds
6
and had to invest them, they were invested in
7
Madoff.
8
accumulated funds would make a distribution to the
9
partners, who then would, more than likely, invest
10
Most entities that were profitable and
their money in Madoff.
11
So, ultimately, one way or another,
12
it would seem that all of the entities that
13
accumulated any kind of funds, if they were going to
14
invest it any place, there would be a likelihood of
15
it being invested in Madoff.
16
Q.
So what you're telling me, I think,
17
is that -- I guess I'm not sure.
18
that entities that by their nature accumulated
19
funds, like a parking garage, they'd have daily
20
revenue, right, that it would be likely that that
21
entity would open an account with Madoff?
22
A.
Are you telling me
If there was a reason for the
23
accumulation, then, yes, and so they therefore
24
wanted to save the money in one place rather than
25
going to the bank on the corner or a broker, the
109
1
election was made to invest it in Madoff.
2
was no need to accumulate a fund, then chances are
3
it would be distributed to the partners.
4
5
6
Q.
If there
And then, as you said, they would
likely put the money back in?
A.
Whatever they did, if they were going
7
to save money, this was the, one of the receptacles
8
of choice, as was any of the other investments that
9
we have touched upon.
We haven't talked about
10
Sterling Stamos, that was an investment opportunity,
11
American Securities, or a partner could elect not to
12
save the money.
13
any boats, but if they wanted -- if that were the
14
case and they were into that...
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
A.
Q.
None of the partners really have
It's their money.
Generally it's their money.
Now, did you view the Madoff
account -- now, we know Madoff was a broker, right?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Madoff was?
Was a broker?
Yes.
Did you view him as, not as a
23
brokerage account, or did you view it as a bank
24
account?
25
A.
It was viewed as a brokerage account.
122
1
It may have been all of the partners in a given
2
situation, or whoever might have been involved in
3
opening the accounts.
4
5
Q.
What would be the subject of
discussion?
6
A.
Might be the names of the accounts,
7
who the partners were, what percentages, if there
8
were more than one partner, if it was a tenant-in-
9
common account, for example, what the percentages
10
were.
11
signing, what Social Security number would be used,
12
again, if it was more than one person.
13
basics of opening the account.
14
And the paperwork involved, who would be
Q.
Just the
Other than the basics of opening the
15
account, what you've just mentioned, were there any
16
other factors or matters that were taken into
17
consideration in deciding whether to open a new
18
account with Bernie Madoff?
19
20
21
22
A.
I wasn't involved, that I can
recollect, in making any kind of determination.
Q.
Did you -- well, let me back up.
Did you have any understanding, when
23
you joined Sterling in January of '86, regarding
24
Madoff's investment strategy?
25
MS. SESHENS:
At the time he joined?
123
1
2
MR. LUCCHESI:
Q.
Yes.
At the time you joined, did you have
3
an understanding of Madoff, Bernie Madoff's
4
investment strategy?
5
6
A.
At that initial time, no.
It was
explained to me very early on what his strategy was.
7
Q.
8
very early on?
9
10
11
12
13
A.
Q.
Okay.
And who explained that to you
I don't really recollect who.
Was it someone at Sterling or was it
Mr. Madoff himself?
A.
Q.
No, it was somebody at Sterling.
Were you tasked at any time with
14
doing any due diligence into Madoff, in connection
15
with investments that were either made or
16
contemplated to be made by the Sterling entities?
17
A.
I did a certain amount of diligence.
18
It was a question -- I don't recollect if, to what
19
extent it was assigned to me, advised, requested,
20
suggested or, in some cases where I just did it on
21
my own to do due diligence.
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
It's hard to say sometimes.
Due diligence.
Got it out.
Do you recall what diligence you did
with respect to Madoff?
124
1
A.
I recall in the very early stages
2
actually tracking market prices.
In other words,
3
when we first were invested, we did not invest in
4
index puts and calls.
5
we bought seven individual stocks, we bought the
6
puts and sold the calls on each individual security.
7
And I can remember, and I don't remember exactly for
8
how long I continued that, but if the statement came
9
out that we bought this list -- and I'm just using
10
seven as an example, it wasn't necessarily seven --
11
at specific dollar amounts and the puts and calls at
12
certain specific amounts, I actually went to the
13
newspapers and tracked to see how that fit into
14
the -- first of all, did it fit into a range, did it
15
trade at that value, and was it the high, the low,
16
the middle, the closing price of the range for the
17
day.
We invested in individual, if
That was one thing I did.
18
I can remember other exercises I went
19
through.
They weren't necessarily due diligence,
20
but just from a tracking standpoint, I can remember
21
trying to project a month ahead of time what, based
22
upon the prices, what the maximum gain and the
23
maximum loss might be under the circumstances.
24
then going back and seeing exactly how we did and
25
how that reality measured up to my projections.
And
125
1
2
3
4
That wasn't necessarily due diligence.
Q.
How did your reality match up?
Do
you have a general recollection?
A.
To the best of my recollection, it
5
was -- first of all, it did fall within -- again,
6
what I projected was the maximum that we could gain
7
and the maximum we could loss -- lose.
8
that there was puts and calls, there was a maximum
9
on both sides.
10
between that.
11
Q.
The fact
And in all cases it would fall
It wasn't outside that range.
Let me just ask you this, kind of out
12
of order here, but do you recall any particular,
13
let's take month, any month in which Madoff reported
14
a loss on the investments that he purportedly made
15
on behalf of Sterling?
16
A.
17
Q.
18
Yes.
being a loss?
19
A.
20
How many times do you recall there
entire --
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
How many times throughout the
Yes.
-- 23-year -Yes.
This would be speculation because I
don't, without referring to records --
139
1
1987, in November of 1987, to be the risks of
2
selling puts, as you -- I'm sorry, workings of puts
3
and calls -- I was reading your title.
4
you didn't sell a put, but...
5
6
I thought
Do you recall why, what the risks you
perceived in trading in puts and calls?
7
MS. SESHENS:
8
A.
Objection to the form.
I really don't recollect.
This would
9
seem to follow up the Al Frank memo as opposed to
10
the, again, having anything to do with Mr. Madoff
11
suggesting.
12
Again, it's talking about selling puts.
Q.
The second paragraph begins:
"Assume
13
we tell Bernie Madoff to sell puts that have
14
appreciated dramatically due to a market crash."
15
And then it goes on to describe how that transaction
16
is effectuated.
17
18
19
20
Did you ever tell Bernie to sell
puts?
A.
Q.
No.
Did you ever give Bernie any
21
instruction regarding the investments that he was
22
making on behalf, allegedly making on behalf of the
23
Sterling entities or partners?
24
25
A.
Q.
No.
You indicated before that you, at
140
1
some point in time, did some checking, you said you
2
looked in the newspaper after you got your statement
3
from Mr. Madoff and checked the prices at which his
4
trades, his trades had been effectuated.
5
recall telling me that?
6
A.
7
8
Q.
Do you
Yes.
Do you recall when you did that?
Over what periods of time you checked the prices?
9
A.
I don't have an exact recollection.
10
You mean how long after we got the statement or for
11
how long I continued to do that?
12
13
Q.
How long -- it was the latter one,
how long you continued to do that.
14
A.
15
too long.
16
didn't lead to anything that I would say something's
17
wrong.
18
19
20
Q.
I don't know exactly, but it wasn't
I mean, it was a lot of work and it
Is that the purpose for which you
were doing the checking?
A.
Just -- well, I think it had multi-
21
purpose.
One was just to learn more about the whole
22
procedure and work through it.
23
tried to do the strategy myself to see how I would
24
make out if I did it.
25
learn to track it, to see how it worked and at the
At some point I even
But the purpose was just to
141
1
same time if anything turned up that was not -- that
2
didn't look right.
3
4
5
6
Q.
I take it nothing turned up that
didn't look right when you checked the prices?
A.
Q.
That's correct.
Did you notice if Bernie was
7
consistently selling at the high or selling in the
8
middle or selling at the low?
9
A.
There was no consistency.
It was
10
within the range, whether it was high or low.
It
11
was just in the range, but I didn't see any, that it
12
traded right at the top, bottom or an average in
13
between.
14
Q.
Did you ever look at, when you sold
15
the stock during a particular month, did you ever
16
look at how that stock traded across the whole month
17
to see if he sold it at the top consistently, the
18
highest price for the month?
19
A.
No, I don't remember doing that.
20
just remember when he sold it, on the day that he
21
I
sold it, I looked at that day's transactions.
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
Just to see if it was in the range?
Yeah.
Did you ever notice prices that were
not within the range, ever?
142
1
2
A.
Q.
Not that I can recall, no.
If you had noticed a price out of the
3
range on a particular stock, would -- what would
4
your reaction have been?
5
6
MS. SESHENS:
Q.
7
8
9
10
11
What would you have done?
MS. SESHENS:
A.
Objection.
Objection.
I would have brought it to the
attention of the partners and looked for guidance as
to what we would do next.
Q.
Would you have -- would it have been
12
within your range of authority, within the scope of
13
your authority if you'd notice such a discrepancy to
14
call Madoff directly and ask him about that?
15
16
17
18
MS. SESHENS:
A.
Same objection.
I wouldn't have done that without
speaking to the partner.
Q.
19
directly?
20
A.
You wouldn't have called Madoff
21
Q.
No.
Would you have called anyone at
22
Madoff's shop directly without speaking to the
23
partners for something like that?
24
25
A.
the partners.
I don't believe so.
I would speak to
144
1
A.
2
I really don't recollect exactly.
Q.
Did you check all of the trades for
3
all of the accounts at that, whatever time period
4
you were doing it, or did you just pick one account?
5
6
A.
accounts because everything was a mirror image.
7
Q.
8
9
No, I checked -- no, not all of the
Fair enough.
A.
In other words, he would buy seven --
if he bought seven securities, it would be seven
10
securities in each account.
11
account.
12
Q.
13
I wouldn't have done every other account.
A.
14
So I only had to do one
Q.
But you would have done -I would have done every trade, yes.
So, you indicated that you attempted
15
to replicate Madoff's strategy.
16
Tell me.
17
18
A.
What did you do?
Trying to recollect exactly what I
did.
19
I would take the stocks that he
20
purchased, and I believe what I did was to follow
21
the strategy.
22
testing what he did that he's giving us accurate
23
numbers, but if I utilize his strategy, let's say
24
when I got the slips that said this is what he
25
bought, I would take that information and then try
What I'd want to see is I wasn't
145
1
to enact it on my own account.
2
quantities, didn't matter the quantity, but just to
3
take what to buy, but I would always be lagging
4
behind him.
5
would do, and I found that he did, I'm making up,
6
say 15 percent.
7
made a profit.
8
strategy was good, it worked, but not to the extent
9
that it worked for him.
10
Different
Just to get a general idea of how I
I did more like six percent.
I
I determined in my own mind that the
One of the major reasons was the
11
commission.
12
somehow what the commission would be, what I'd have
13
to pay if I did this on my own.
14
little or no commission, and that made a big
15
difference when you're dealing with, just looking to
16
try to make one percent a month, that made a
17
difference.
18
Q.
When I did the strategy I determined
Whereas he had
So your understanding was that the
19
difference between the -- I know you made these
20
numbers up, but your six percent return that you
21
were able to accomplish and his 14 or 16, whatever
22
you said, was primarily driven by the absence of
23
commission costs?
24
25
MS. SESHENS:
A.
Objection to the form.
That was one of --
249
1
Right?
Correct?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MS. SESHENS:
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Object to the form.
Yes.
You managed the accounts?
Yes.
You set up many of the accounts?
What does it mean, "set up"?
You did the paperwork to open the
accounts with Madoff?
A.
I had the paperwork prepared and
11
necessary signatures and submitted them to the
12
Madoff firm, yes.
13
14
Q.
of the accounts --
15
16
17
MR. LUCCHESI:
Q.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Well, strike that.
Did you purposely set up many of the
accounts as tenants in common?
18
19
Was it your understanding that many
MS. SESHENS:
A.
Q.
Objection.
Yes.
Do you understand what "tenants in
common" -A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
What is that?
What is that?
Tenants in common are an account of
more than one person, two or more, whereby there's
351
1
about year-end, this would be utilized for the
2
financial statements, so --
3
Q.
Right.
Maybe I didn't ask the
4
question very well.
5
a total.
6
mean, it seems you're actually calling out Madoff
7
separately from the other investments to show what's
8
in Madoff versus what's everywhere else.
9
was that the intent here?
10
I mean, you could have had just
You could have had a total, 123, but, I
A.
I mean,
It was just an itemization, not --
11
each -- each place.
12
miscellaneous, but just to show where all money was
13
invested.
14
Q.
There was a combination of
Was there a concern at any point that
15
your divestment -- your investments -- Because you
16
had, as you told me yesterday, some substantial
17
portion of your investments with Madoff.
18
mean yours personally.
19
Was there some concern that you weren't diversified
20
enough?
21
I don't
I mean the Sterling group.
Did anybody ever voice that?
A.
We certainly took cognizance of being
22
diversified, and the point would be brought up on
23
occasion, but everybody felt so very comfortable
24
with Madoff.
25
other than in a bull market where the returns in
The returns were generally better
352
1
Prudential might have been even higher than Madoff.
2
There was just total satisfaction and comfort with
3
having money invested with Madoff.
4
Q.
Who would -- If there was one
5
particular individual or more than one, who were the
6
person or persons that were within your group that
7
raised concerns about diversification or lack of
8
diversification of your investments?
9
A.
I don't know why I feel this question
10
was asked before, but, in any event, one I could
11
always point to would be David Katz, Saul Katz's
12
son.
13
Q.
14
these people.
15
background research.
16
today?
17
18
A.
Q.
Okay.
And how -- I don't know any of
I probably should have done more
But how old is David Katz
Today he is 46.
Okay.
So in the nineties,
19
mid-nineties he would have been -- would have been
20
in his early thirties.
21
get some range of ages here.
22
first raising the issue of diversification?
23
24
25
A.
When -- I'm just trying to
When do you recall him
Probably not as early as 1994.
More
into the 2000 and above.
Q.
Okay.
So what was the reaction --
353
1
First of all, what do you recall him saying other
2
than, We ought to diversify?
3
saying anything more than that?
4
A.
Do you recall him
It was just -- no warning about
5
Madoff or any uneasy feeling about Madoff.
6
just a good idea which nobody disagreed with, to
7
spread money to more than one place.
8
9
10
11
Q.
Okay.
It's
And then was that generally
agreed with, that we -- that you should spread the
money to more than one place?
A.
I think the point was made, and maybe
12
some heads were nodded.
13
anything like that, but everybody understood the
14
concept of diversifying and respected it and thought
15
it was the right thing.
16
17
18
Q.
There wasn't a vote or
What steps were taken, if any, to
diversify?
A.
At one point, Saul Katz decided that
19
we should -- diversification -- He wanted to
20
diversify, and his thought was a fund of funds would
21
be a good place to diversify funds.
22
conservative.
23
That's how Sterling Stamos was born.
24
25
Q.
Relatively
The returns were purportedly good.
Before Sterling Stamos was born, you
had discussions with IV Management?
358
1
A.
Just to have more information.
2
There's certain analysis that we did -- we did not
3
include the Mets.
4
separated.
5
Q.
Just we have the figures
Okay.
So was the decision to back
6
the Mets out just random -- We'll just back out the
7
Mets.
8
out the Mets from the analysis?
9
-- or was there a business reason for backing
A.
No business reason.
The Mets numbers
10
were varied more than others.
When they needed
11
money, they withdrew money out of Madoff.
12
had extra money, certain times during the year,
13
generally, when season ticket holders purchased
14
their tickets, there would be large sums of money.
15
Towards the end of the season, the balances would be
16
smaller.
17
It was just to identify.
18
significant number.
When they
So they changed a lot more than others.
Okay.
The Mets certainly were a
19
Q.
So if I could kind of reword
20
what you said.
21
out -- I think what you're telling me is because --
22
because of the variation in the Mets account, it
23
could skew the numbers one way or the other, make a
24
comparison from month to month or time period to
25
time period, not necessarily representative of what
Was it -- the Mets were backed
422
1
2
conversation, no, I don't know.
Q.
Do you know why American Securities
3
may have purchased insurance to cover its Madoff
4
investments?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.
Q.
What did you do after learning of the
existence of this insurance or potential insurance?
A.
As I said, I did make some contact
and got details on what the insurance was about and
the cost of the insurance.
Q.
Okay.
And do you have a -- well,
strike that.
13
14
I don't know.
Who did you contact?
A.
I'm fairly certain I reported that,
15
when I made the contact, the gentleman's name, the
16
company he worked for and the other details of the
17
meeting.
18
met with some individual from an insurance company.
19
20
21
22
Q.
I believe it was Michael Katz and I both
Okay.
And did you have more than one
meeting with the insurance company person?
A.
I don't recollect if there was more.
Tend to think there was only one meeting.
23
Q.
24
meeting?
25
A.
And did you take notes at that
Yes.
I usually do and I assume I
429
1
Q.
I've handed you another handwritten
2
document we've marked as Exhibit 22.
3
appear to be your handwriting?
4
A.
5
Q.
6
7
A.
Yes, it is.
Do you recall taking those notes?
I don't actually recall taking them,
but there's no question that I took them.
8
9
Does that
Q.
Can you tell from, either because you
remember and know or because something in the
10
document shows you, the circumstances under which
11
you wrote these notes?
12
A.
I would say they were taken at the
13
time that I met with Mr. Duran or immediately
14
thereafter.
15
Q.
Okay.
Then what -- can you tell me,
16
the other notes that we looked at that were part of
17
Exhibit 20, when were those taken?
18
19
A.
Those were taken sometime shortly
after February 26.
20
Q.
Including the second page of Exhibit
21
20?
22
20 the notes that you took in order to write the
23
memo?
24
25
Let me ask this:
A.
Q.
Is the second page of Exhibit
Yes.
Okay, I didn't realize that.
Thank
430
1
you.
2
3
4
5
6
7
So Exhibit 22 then are the notes you
took at the meeting with Mr. Duran?
A.
Q.
Either at or immediately thereafter.
Okay.
are in your handwriting?
A.
8
Q.
9
Yes, they are.
beginning part.
10
11
12
13
And all the notes on this page
The first -- let's just read the
What does that say?
what does that say?
A.
Q.
A.
That heading,
Bond, is it bond coverage?
Looks like bond coverage.
Do you know what that refers to?
No.
I don't know why I would have
14
written bond.
15
margin, perhaps it doesn't -- perhaps I started to
16
write something.
17
written bond.
I can understand coverage, but...
18
Q.
Do you understand the beginning of
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The fact that it's outside the
I don't know why I would have
your notes to be describing the scope of coverage?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And this was based on the discussion
that took place in June of 2001?
A.
Q.
fidelity"?
Yes.
And the first line says, "Fraud or
431
1
A.
2
Q.
3
And then in parens it says "Ponzi"?
A.
4
5
Correct.
Yes.
Q.
What was the conversation that
surrounded those notes?
6
A.
This, to some extent I'm guessing,
7
but that, he mentioned, I have some recollection of
8
him giving examples of what types of fraud, and
9
Ponzi was one of them.
10
quite sure how to spell Ponzi.
11
Q.
12
13
I see.
A.
I'm not sure how I wound up
ultimately, either.
14
15
You can see I wasn't even
Q.
It's hard to read.
Looks like you've got an E on the
end.
16
A.
I think so, too.
17
Q.
18
at that time?
19
20
21
A.
I don't think I did.
Q.
Was there any discussion of Madoff in
particular during the course of this meeting?
22
23
Did you know what a Ponzi scheme was
A.
No.
Q.
Did you discuss your investments with
24
Madoff?
Other than the fact that you had
25
investments.
Well, let me ask that.
Did you
433
1
SIPC, S-I-P-C, dash, only insolvency.
2
that refer to?
3
4
5
A.
What does
I'm only interpreting what I think it
means, is that SIPC only covers insolvency.
Q.
And then below that it says, "Limited
6
to 100 million," dash, and then in parentheses it
7
says 300,000.
8
to 20 million per account."
9
to, what was being discussed at that point?
10
A.
Then below that, "probably 10 million
What does that refer
The maximum amount of coverage that
11
would be available would be 100 million.
12
would be 300,000, and he probably indicated or I
13
summarized that the maximum coverage for any one
14
account would be somewhere between 10 and 20
15
million.
16
Q.
17
18
19
20
21
22
The cost
So, was this insurance ever
purchased?
A.
Q.
No.
Was any similar insurance ever
purchased?
A.
Q.
No.
By similar I mean other insurance to
23
cover investments made with Madoff against fraud or
24
infidelity.
25
A.
No.
434
1
2
3
Q.
What was the reason insurance was not
purchased?
A.
4
was very high.
5
Q.
We didn't see any need and the cost
6
7
8
9
A.
Do you know who the SKCG Group is?
It's an insurance company that we
work with now, one of the insurance companies.
Q.
What type -- do they provide any
insurance -- what type of insurance does SKCG Group
10
provide to you?
11
A.
12
13
14
15
16
Provide property insurance for the
various properties that we own or manage.
Q.
That insurance wouldn't cover your
Madoff losses, correct?
A.
Q.
No.
Do you recall from time to time that
17
Madoff would offer, I'll call them special deals for
18
investment?
19
20
21
A.
Q.
A.
I recall one such time.
What do you recall?
Only one.
Tell me.
I recall that it was reported to us,
22
and I don't remember by whom or how they got the
23
information, that he was offering a special return.
24
He felt that there was something he could do to
25
increase the normal return we were getting by up to,
484
1
A.
Well, as I indicated, perhaps it was
2
yesterday, I gave an example that David Katz was one
3
who preached more diversification and certainly he
4
would start, if he said we're putting too much on
5
Madoff, in Madoff, he would start by the doubling up
6
accounts.
7
felt we should diversify more and not keep anything
8
in one place, that is doubling up what you're
9
putting in.
10
11
Q.
That's putting even more.
So anybody who
It's a tremendous amount of risk, in
comparison to not doubling up?
12
A.
13
Q.
A tremendous amount of what?
Risk.
14
A.
15
if we felt risk.
16
comfortable with investing money with the Madoff
17
firm.
18
just an opportunity to increase the return on the
19
investment we made.
We didn't see, we didn't
20
understand any risk.
You could term that, by
21
hindsight you could put a lot of titles on that, but
22
that was a fact.
23
Sterling partners are people who would generally
24
take risks.
25
We didn't -- we wouldn't have done it
We didn't see risk.
We were very
We put more and more money in and this was
Q.
We were not -- none of the
So generally you would classify your,
485
1
or describe the Sterling partners' investment
2
strategy as risk adverse?
3
4
MS. SESHENS:
A.
Object to the form.
To some extent, yes.
The fact that
5
the strategy employed by Madoff used puts to protect
6
you on the downside, to that extent, yes.
7
didn't have any risk, you weren't at risk in the
8
stock market.
9
Q.
You
You mentioned yesterday, or maybe the
10
day before, Sterling Pathogenesis.
11
a -- was that also a double-up account or leveraged
12
account?
13
A.
I don't believe so.
That was also
I'm not
14
absolutely certain, but I don't think so.
15
have been.
16
17
Could
(Exhibit AF-28 marked for
identification.)
18
MR. LUCCHESI:
Dana, I think you'll
19
recognize your letter.
20
thought this was the easiest way to do this.
21
trying to make you a witness or anything.
22
MS. SESHENS:
23
Q.
Just so I don't have to -- I
Not
That is okay.
Exhibit 28 is a June 3rd, 2002 letter
24
from your counsel, Dana Seshens, to Baker &
25
Hostetler.
And attached to it is an Exhibit A,
487
1
2
page of the chart.
A.
Okay.
If it was levered, you know, I
3
didn't think so, but it's not a great surprise that
4
it was a levered or doubling-up account.
5
6
Q.
Okay.
All right.
Okay, that's all I
have for that right now.
7
Was the decision to do this
8
leveraging by borrowing money from a bank for
9
deposit into accounts at Madoff, was that the
10
subject of discussion among the partners prior to
11
doing it?
12
A.
13
Yes, it was.
Q.
Yes.
Did anyone, did any of the partners
14
disagree that this was an appropriate or a wise
15
investment strategy?
16
17
18
19
MS. SESHENS:
A.
Object to the form.
I don't recollect anybody
disagreeing.
Q.
Was there a separate discussion about
20
doubling-up accounts with respect to each time it
21
was done?
22
for Sterling 30, a separate discussion at the time
23
you did Sterling 10, et cetera?
24
25
A.
In other words, was there a discussion
The only discussion was we are
opening a Sterling 20.
If anybody wants to put any
488
1
money in Sterling 20, it's open now, we intend to go
2
ahead and close it on X date.
3
the only discussion because there was a voluntary
4
thing with all of those accounts, Sterling 20 and so
5
forth.
6
that any individual partner put in any money.
7
That virtually was
It wasn't mandatory that you put in any --
Q.
The money that went into the
8
double-up accounts, was there any restriction on
9
where that money, or limitation on where that money
10
could come from?
11
A.
There was an understood restriction
12
that you just couldn't borrow it from Sterling
13
Equities Funding to put it in leverage and put it
14
into Madoff.
That was understood.
15
Q.
16
Madoff account?
17
A.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Could you take it out of an existing
Yes.
Did anyone do that, to your
knowledge?
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Who did that?
I for one did it.
I think almost
every partner did it.
Q.
Okay.
So Madoff didn't impose any
restrictions on where the money could come from?
538
1
A.
There were meetings held with M & T
2
and anybody who had knowledge of all of the other
3
options and representatives from Sterling that knew
4
more about the Madoff option and answered any
5
questions at the same time.
6
7
8
9
10
Q.
Who were the representatives from
Sterling that met with the employees?
A.
I believe Michael Katz and myself
were two, but I don't remember exactly who, if any
other partners were present.
11
Q.
12
present?
13
14
A.
Q.
Was anyone from Madoff's office
No.
Whose idea was it to offer the
15
401(k), as part of the 401(k) plan the option to
16
invest with Madoff?
17
A.
I think that was all of the partners.
18
Somebody advanced it and all of the partners
19
endorsed the idea, to give all of the employees an
20
opportunity, whereas generally they didn't have that
21
opportunity to invest in Madoff.
22
were in Madoff some 11 years, were extremely happy
23
with the returns.
24
anybody -- for retirement funds in particular to
25
grow tax deferred, good rate of return, the chance
We at that point
It seemed like an ideal place if
539
1
of loss was very, very small.
2
as I said, a great place to put retirement funds and
3
we were happy about being able to offer that
4
alternative to employees.
5
Q.
It just seemed like,
Did anyone from Sterling talk to
6
Madoff about this before you offered it to the
7
employees?
8
9
A.
No, I'm sure
they didn't or else I would have known.
10
11
Not that I know of.
Q.
So -- that answer, frankly, surprised
me.
12
If I understand you correctly, nobody
13
raised with Madoff in advance of creating this
14
401(k) investment option for your employees the fact
15
that perhaps there would be a new account being
16
opened, you'd like to open an account, a 401(k)
17
account for employees, no one discussed that with
18
Madoff?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Opening a 401(k) plan with Madoff?
Yes.
Yes.
That was discussed.
Before you offered it to the
employees?
A.
Q.
Absolutely.
That's what I was asking.
SIPC v. BLMIS No. 08-01789-BR:
Rule 2004 Examination of Arthur Friedman
EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE
LINE
ORIGINAL
CHANGE
REDACTED
1
REASON
SIPC v. BLMIS No. 08-01789-BR:
Rule 2004 Examination of Arthur Friedman
EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE
LINE
ORIGINAL
CHANGE
REDACTED
2
REASON
SIPC v. BLMIS No. 08-01789-BR:
Rule 2004 Examination of Arthur Friedman
EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE
LINE
ORIGINAL
CHANGE
REDACTED
3
REASON
SIPC v. BLMIS No. 08-01789-BR:
Rule 2004 Examination of Arthur Friedman
EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE
LINE
ORIGINAL
CHANGE
REASON
REDACTED
353
just a good idea which nobody
6 disagreed with, to
just a good idea, which nobody
disagreed with, to
Grammatical error
REDACTED
358
Mets. -- or was there a business
7 reason for backing
Mets -- or was there a business reason
for backing
REDACTED
4
Grammatical error
SIPC v. BLMIS No. 08-01789-BR:
Rule 2004 Examination of Arthur Friedman
EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE
LINE
ORIGINAL
CHANGE
REDACTED
5
REASON
SIPC v. BLMIS No. 08-01789-BR:
Rule 2004 Examination of Arthur Friedman
EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE
LINE
ORIGINAL
CHANGE
REDACTED
6
REASON