[ by Melanie Gretchen ] On March 19th, Madoff trustee Irving Picard squares off against Mets owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz in Bankruptcy Court.  The much-awaited trial, in which Mr. Picard seeks to recover some $300,000 from the Mets owners, may offer a unique opportunity to look inside he coveted relationship - i.e., shed light on the behind-the-scene interaction - between Bernie Madoff and his long-time investor-friends, who conceivably may also have served as a feeder of sorts for his Ponzi scheme. Claim. In 2010, Mr. Picard filed a claim against Katz and Wilpon, along with a number of their investment vehicles, for more than $1 billion invested through Madoff's investment advisory firm.  Judge Jed Rakoff of the United States District Court in Manhattan took his lawsuit out of the Federal Bankruptcy Court and then dismissed most of the claims last September, after which the Judge decided:

• Only transfers occurring within 2 years of the bankruptcy could be pursued.
• Under the securities laws the trustee would have to show that the investors engaged in actual fraud to be liable for any payments withdrawn from Madoff's firm beyond fictitious profits paid down.

Going forward, Mr. Picard claim was cut down to $380 million, including $300 million in principal that the defendants withdrew from Madoff's firm, plus $83.3 million that represented purported profits on their investments paid out in the 2 years before the Ponzi scheme collapsed.  At stake is whether Mr. Picard can prove the Mets owners were "willfully blind" to the fraud and therefore acted in bad faith - whether they knew what about Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Appeals. If Mr. Picard succeeds, the jury verdict in favor of the defendants can't be appealed by the double jeaopardy clause.  However, if Picard's claims are rejected, he would be able to appeal Judge Rakoff's decisions restricting the clawback suit, which he has been trying to do since last year. Another appeal that could affect the case involves the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding Mr. Picard's determination that the investors who were "net winners" by withdrawing more than they invested with Mr. Madoff could be subject to having that clawback. What We Have to Look Forward To. If the case were reviewed by the Supreme Court, we're looking at another year of discovery and appeals.  Though whether investors were "net winners" is yet to be determined, one thing is certain: for the moment, Madoff's victims are not. For further details, go to [Dealbook, 3/12/12].