The following excerpt is from Picard v. Gettinger (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 976 F.3d 184 (2nd Cir. 2020):
The court disagreed. It explained that the "for value" defense applies when there is "commensurability of consideration," that is, where payments to the investor resisting claw back are "offset by an equivalent benefit to the estate." Id. (quoting Scholes v. Lehmann , 56 F.3d 750, 757 (7th Cir. 1995) ). The defendants' receipt of fictitious profits, the court stated, does not meet that test. The court observed that
[976 F.3d 192]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.