Apparently, the owners of the NY Mets are in midseason form.  Federal judge Jed Rakoff rejected a request to dismiss the $386 million lawsuit by Madoff trustee Irving Picard.  Instead, Judge Rakoff ruled that Picard can claim as much as $83.3 million without a trial.  Picard also seeks another $303 million, but to collect, he must convince a federal jury that Mets owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, and other defendants were “wilfully blind” to the fraud. Nevertheless, Judge Rakoff said he remained "skeptical" that trustee Picard can prevail on the rest of his lawsuit - he accuses team owners of acting in bad faith in dealing with Madoff.  Wilpon and Katz have said they saw nothing suspicious about Madoff in their more than 20 years of investing with him and "never for a moment" thought he was engaged in a fraud or Ponzi scheme. Monday's ruling could pave the way for a settlement prior to a scheduled March 19 jury trial in the case, which has been a major overhang on the money-losing Major League Baseball team.  A spokesperson for Picard said the trustee was reviewing the decision;  no comment was offered by a lawyer for the Mets owners. Rakoff said Picard could recover fictitious profits that the Mets owners got in the 2 years prior to the December 2008 bankruptcy of Bernie & Co. securities firm - saying the amount would be determined later and could total as much as $83.3 million. As far as Rakoff skeptical view of Picard's chances, it's believed by some that the comments could undercut a desire to go to trial.  Rakoff said much of the "evidence" that both sides offered to support their cases would not be admissible in his court.  In his written opinion, Rakoff expressed the following:

"Conclusions are no substitute for facts, and too much of what the parties characterized as bombshells proved to be nothing but bombast.  Nevertheless, there remains a residue of disputed factual assertions from which a jury could infer either good or bad faith."

The case: Picard v. Katz, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-3605. For further details, go to:   [Reuters, 3/5/12] and  [Bloomberg, 3/5/12].