15 killed as thousands march in Syria (AFP)

DAMASCUS (AFP) – Syrian security forces shot dead 15 protestors and injured dozens as tens of thousands of anti-regime demonstrators surged onto the streets, prompting Europe to blast the "shocking" crackdown.

Friday's demonstrations were a response to a call by the Facebook group Syrian Revolution 2011, a driving force behind three months of protests against the autocratic rule of President Bashar al-Assad.

Five people died in Damascus, another five in the town of Kiswah south of the capital, three in Homs and two others near the central city, activists told AFP.

"Security forces tried to break up a rally calling for the fall of the regime with tear gas before opening fire," killing five and wounding 25 others, said an activist in the Damascus neighbourhood of Barzeh.

Activists said dozens of people in Barzeh were arrested in house-to-house searches and a curfew was also imposed there, although it was not clear when it would be lifted.

At least five demonstrators were killed in the town of Kiswah south of Damascus, another activist told AFP.

"Demonstrators left the mosque after Friday prayers and marched for a few minutes until security forces opened fire to disperse them, killing five people and wounding six others," said Mohammad Enad Suleiman.

Three people were killed in Homs and two others near the central city when security forces opened fire on protesters, according to activists at the scene.

Demonstrations rocked many other cities, including the eastern oil hub of Deir Ezzor where 30,000 protesters filled the streets, said Rami Abdel Rahman of the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Security forces also arrested between 70 and 80 protestors in Mareh near Aleppo, Syria's largest city, after anti-government protests, activists said.

State television blamed the civilian deaths in Barzeh on "armed men," saying they also wounded several security force members including an officer.

It added that a police officer was also shot dead in the Damascus suburb of Kadam, and the official SANA news agency reported that "several members of the security forces were hit by gunfire in Kiswah."

Syria blames the violence on "armed terrorist gangs" and says the protests are being orchestrated from abroad.

Syrian rights groups say that more than 1,300 people have been killed and 10,000 have been arrested in the regime's brutal crackdown on dissent since the protests erupted on March 15.

The latest protests were held under the slogan "Fall of legitimacy," with a Facebook page message reading: "Bashar is no longer my president and his government no longer represents me."

The crackdown has sent nearly 12,000 Syrians fleeing to safety in neighbouring Turkey, prompting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to warn of the risk of regional escalation.

The European Union scorned Assad's regime, saying its legitimacy was undermined by the crackdown.

A declaration adopted at an EU summit in Brussels "condemns in the strongest possible terms the ongoing repression and unacceptable and shocking violence the Syrian regime continues to apply against its own citizens.

"By choosing a path of repression instead of fulfilling its own promises on broad reforms, the regime is calling its legitimacy into question," it added, saying all those responsible for targeting civilians would be held accountable.

The EU leaders also urged the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning the crackdown, a move opposed by veto-wielding member Russia.

Earlier this week, the EU slapped fresh sanctions on Syria, expanding a blacklist targeting 23 top leaders including the embattled Assad and three commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guard accused of aiding the crackdown.

Damascus reacted angrily to the sanctions, with Foreign Minister Walid Muallem saying they were "equivalent to war" and denying receiving Iranian help.

Meanwhile, the number of Syrians sheltering in Turkey has approached 12,000 after some 1,500 refugees poured across the border on Thursday and Friday, officials in Ankara said.

Clinton said the Syrian troop buildup was "worrisome," could increase the chances of a border clash and "only exacerbate the already unstable refugee situation in Syria."

The EU declaration called for "maximum restraint" following Syrian military activity near the Turkish border.

"What is happening in Syria is quite appalling, thousands of people are being killed, tens of thousands have been interned," British Prime Minister David Cameron said.

View the original article here

Read more »

Lawmakers harden positions on taxes, spending (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republicans and Democrats dug in their heels Friday as President Barack Obama prepared to wade into a divisive debate over taxes and spending aimed at heading off a default on the U.S. government's debt.

The White House said Obama would meet separately with Senate Democratic and Republican leaders Monday in an effort to resurrect negotiations that collapsed when Republicans walked out Thursday over Democrats' demands for tax hikes.

"The president is willing to make tough choices but he cannot ask the middle class and seniors to bear all the burden for deficit reduction and sacrifice while millionaires and billionaires ... are let off the hook," said White House spokesman Jay Carney aboard Air Force One.

Republicans Friday ruled out any tax increases as part of an agreement to narrow stubborn budget deficits and raise the U.S. debt limit. The federal deficit now stands at $1.4 trillion, among the highest levels relative to the economy since World War Two.

The $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling must be increased before August 2 or the Treasury Department will run out of money to pay the country's bills. A default on debt payments could send markets plunging around the world and raise the risk of another U.S. recession.

House Speaker John Boehner and fellow Republicans say any package that includes tax increases stands no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. Senate Republicans threaten to block the measure if it includes tax increases.

"A tax hike can't pass the Congress. They might as well ask us to herd unicorns through the Senate chamber," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. "It just can't happen."

Conservatives in Congress, including many Tea Party activists who are credited with winning the House for Republicans in the 2010 election, have questioned whether there really is a pressing need to increase the debt limit. They have laid down tough prerequisites to win their votes, including passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Democrats have expanded their demands in recent days to say any package must include measures to boost the struggling economy, which could add to the deficit. They say they will not support a package that relies only on spending cuts.

"Make no mistake. there needs to be revenues in any deal," said senior Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he was confident Congress could still reach a budget deal, but that it would have to include some tax hikes.

"You need to have modest changes in revenue," Geithner said in New Hampshire. "There is no way to do a deal without it."=

ON THE TABLE

Democrats have eased back from their insistence that personal income tax rates need to rise on the wealthiest Americans to focus instead on ending a wide range of tax breaks on everything from corporate jets to oil and gas subsidies.

They have also proposed closing tax breaks that benefit the wealthy, such as limiting the deductions for households making more than $500,000 a year.

Representative Chris Van Hollen, one of the Democrats who was involved in the failed talks led by Vice President Joe Biden, said Republicans had refused to budge.

"What we've seen is all take and no give," he said.

A senior administration official said eliminating loopholes and tax breaks on corporate jets, energy companies and hedge funds, and capping itemized deductions for wealthier Americans -- all steps identified in Obama's 2012 budget -- could save $400 billion over 10 years.

"This is what they are throwing the fit about. Because they somehow believe that special loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, oil and gas subsidies -- somehow they are willing to go to the wall for that," said a second senior administration official.

But a Republican source familiar with the talks said Democrats were also pushing repeal of the "last in first out," (LIFO) accounting convention that he said would cost manufacturers billions of dollars, while capping itemized deductions would hurt hundreds of thousands of small U.S. businesses.

"They're not talking about a few tax loopholes. They're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. You can't get there by just going after corporate jets," the source said.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that repealing LIFO, which allows companies to match sales revenues against inventory replacement costs, would raise taxes for U.S. companies by $50 billion over 10 years.

Boehner said if Obama offered up spending cuts that were at least the size of a debt limit increase -- thought to be around $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion -- and if new budget reforms were put in place, "He has my word that the House will act on it."

Those are requirements Boehner and fellow Republican leaders have been voicing for months.

"We believe that we can move forward, as long as no one in these talks takes a my-way-or-the-highway approach," Carney said.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

Read more »

NY Gov. Cuomo signs gay marriage law (AP)

ALBANY, N.Y. – Same-sex marriage is now legal in New York after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that was narrowly passed by state lawmakers Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the gay rights movement was born.

New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed and the biggest by far.

"We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states," said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat.

Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the country and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

"Once this is signed into law, the population of the United States living under marriage equality doubles," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda in an interview. "That's certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation. It's truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won."

Jerry Nathan of Albany, who married his partner in Massachusetts, called the vote "an incredible culmination of so much that's been going on for so many years it doesn't seem real yet" as he stood outside the Senate chamber afterward.

"But it's the next chapter, I guess, in public acceptance and some kind of maturity in our state, and hopefully the rest of the country, too," Nathan said.

Though New York is a relative latecomer in allowing gay marriage, it is considered an important prize for advocates, given the state's size, New York City's international stature. The gay rights movement is considered to have started with the Stonewall riots in New York City's Greenwich Village in 1969.

A huge street party erupted outside the Stonewall Inn Friday night, with celebrants waving rainbow flags and dancing after the historic vote. They included Sarah Ellis, who has been in a six-year relationship with her partner, Kristen Henderson, said the measure would enable them to get married in the fall. They have twin toddlers and live in Sea Cliff on Long Island.

"We've been waiting. We considered it for a long time, crossing the borders and going to other states," said Ellis, 39. "But until the state that we live in, that we pay taxes in, and we're part of that community, has equal rights and marriage equality, we were not going to do it."

"I am spellbound. I'm so exhausted and so proud that the New York State Senate finally stood on the right side of history," said Queens teacher Eugene Lovendusky, 26, who is gay and said he hopes to marry someday.

He then repeated a chant he had screamed during a protest at a fundraiser for President Barack Obama last night: "I am somebody. I deserve full equality."

A number of celebrities also praised the vote. Lady Gaga tweeted that she couldn't stop crying, while Pink tweeted, "congratulations! About time!"

"I have never be prouder to be a lifelong New Yorker than I am today with the passage of marriage equality," Cyndi Lauper said in a statement.

The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which previously approved the bill, passed the Senate's stronger religious exemptions in the measure Friday, and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying 30 days after that.

Cuomo made a surprise and triumphant walk around the Senate, introduced like a rock star by his lieutenant governor, Robert Duffy. The filled upper gallery shouted down to Cuomo, "Thank you!"

"Feels good?" Cuomo shouted up with a big smile and thumbs up. "Thank you!"

The passage of New York's legislation was made possible by two Republican senators who had been undecided.

Sen. Stephen Saland voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement.

"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."

Gay couples wept in the gallery during Saland's speech.

Sen. Mark Grisanti, a GOP freshman from Buffalo who also had been undecided, also voted for the bill. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.

"I apologize to those I offend," said Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. "But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents," he said.

The effects of the legislation could be felt well beyond New York: Unlike Massachusetts, which pioneered gay marriage in 2004, New York has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning the state could become a magnet for gay couples across the country who want to have a wedding in Central Park, the Hamptons, the romantic Hudson Valley or that honeymoon hot spot of yore, Niagara Falls.

New York, the nation's third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

For five months in 2008, gay marriage was legal in California, the biggest state in population, and 18,000 same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot there before voters overturned the state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the practice. The constitutionality of California's ban is now before a federal appeals court.

The climactic vote came after more than a week of stop-and-start negotiations, rumors, closed-door meetings and frustration on the part of advocates. Online discussions took on a nasty turn with insults and vulgarities peppering the screens of opponents and supporters alike and security was beefed up in the Capitol to give senators easier passage to and from their conference room.

The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.

On Thursday night, Obama encouraged lawmakers to support gay rights during a fundraiser with New York City's gay community. The vote also is sure to charge up annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades Sunday in New York City, San Francisco and other cities.

Despite New York City's liberal Democratic politics and large and vocal gay community, previous efforts to legalize same-sex marriage failed over the past several years, in part because the rest of the state is more conservative than the city.

The bill's success this time reflected the powerful support of Cuomo and perhaps a change in public attitudes. Opinion polls for the first time are showing majority support for same-sex marriage, and Congress recently repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military.

In the week leading up to the vote in New York, some Republicans who opposed the bill in 2009 came forward to say they were supporting it for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.

Pressure to vote for gay marriage also came from celebrities, athletes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-independent who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll GOP campaigns and who personally lobbied some undecided lawmakers. Lady Gaga has been urging her 11 million Twitter followers to call New York senators in support of the bill.

While the support of the Assembly was never in doubt, it took days of furious deal-making to secure two Republican votes needed for passage in the closely divided Senate.

Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox rabbis and other conservative religious leaders fought the measure, and their GOP allies pressed hard for stronger legal protections for religious organizations.

Each side of the debate was funded by more than $1 million from national and state advocates who waged media blitzes and promised campaign cash for lawmakers who sided with them.

But GOP senators said it was Cuomo's passionate appeals in the governor's mansion on Monday night and in closed-door, individual meetings that were perhaps most persuasive.

The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.

View the original article here

Read more »

New York marriage bill paves way for same-sex divorce (Reuters)

NEW YORK (Reuters) – As New York's same-sex couples head to the altar to celebrate their newly won right to marry, they can take comfort in the fact that, if it doesn't work out, their right to get divorced in the state just got a lot easier as well.

State senators on Friday voted 33-29 to approve marriage equality legislation introduced by Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat in his first year of office. New York will become the sixth and most populous U.S. state to allow gay marriage.

"One of the so-called benefits to marriage is actually divorce," said Ruthann Robson, professor of law at the City University of New York. "If same-sex marriage is recognized, same-sex divorce would be recognized too."

In fact, same-sex divorce was first recognized in New York in 2008, when an appeals court found that a same-sex marriage performed in Canada could be legally recognized in New York for the purposes of dissolving the union.

But without a formal law on the books, same-sex divorce in the state has proceeded on a case-by-case basis, creating some degree of uncertainty for same-sex couples looking to undo their unions, said Bettina Hindin, an attorney at Raoul Felder and Partners, who has represented same-sex couples in New York divorce proceedings.

Since same-sex marriages are now legally equivalent to heterosexual unions, same-sex couples' right to divorce will be rooted in New York's Domestic Relations Law, rather than cobbled together out of court rulings and individual judges' decisions, according to Hindin.

"A lot of things are going to be easier" with legalized same-sex marriage, Hindin said. "It's still somewhat out of the ordinary; this will make things far more ordinary."

KIDS STILL AN ISSUE

If same-sex couples married in New York leave the state, however, they may run into trouble getting a divorce, especially if they end up in one of the 30 states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, said Susan Sommer, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, which advocates for gay rights.

In some states, such as Wyoming, courts have found a right to divorce even absent the right to marry. In other jurisdictions that don't recognize same-sex marriages, such as Texas, attempts at same-sex divorce have yielded mixed results.

In 2010, two trial courts in Austin and Dallas granted two separate gay couples' petitions for divorce. The Austin appeals court upheld the ruling on appeal, while the Dallas appeals court did not, ruling that the courts lacked authority to issue divorces for same-sex couples. Both cases are currently pending before the Texas Supreme Court.

"It can be a real bind for people, trapped in this legal limbo," Sommer said.

Still, same-sex relationships are no more susceptible to divorce than their heterosexual counterparts, Sommer added. According to a 2008 report from the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles, annual same-sex marriage divorce rates were about 2 percent, nearly identical to the rate for opposite-sex marriage.

"People go into their marriages expecting everything to work out, and for the majority of people that's the case," Sommer said. "But stuff happens."

One issue that remains unresolved by the same-sex marriage vote is child custody, where one partner is a biological parent but the other has failed to adopt the child.

"Money is easy," Hindin said. "It's the children, the truly emotional piece of the relationship, that will be coming to the forefront and have to be dealt with by statute."

(Reporting by Jessica Dye; Editing by Jesse Wegman and Paul Simao)

View the original article here

Read more »

Terror by any other name: Osama eyed name change (AP)

WASHINGTON – As Osama bin Laden watched his terrorist organization get picked apart, he lamented in his final writings that al-Qaida was suffering from a marketing problem. His group was killing too many Muslims and that was bad for business. The West was winning the public relations fight. All his old comrades were dead and he barely knew their replacements.

Faced with these challenges, bin Laden, who hated the United States and decried capitalism, considered a most American of business strategies. Like Blackwater, ValuJet and Philip Morris, perhaps what al-Qaida really needed was a fresh start under a new name.

The problem with the name al-Qaida, bin Laden wrote in a letter recovered from his compound in Pakistan, was that it lacked a religious element, something to convince Muslims worldwide that they are in a holy war with America.

Maybe something like Taifat al-Tawhed Wal-Jihad, meaning Monotheism and Jihad Group, would do the trick, he wrote. Or Jama'at I'Adat al-Khilafat al-Rashida, meaning Restoration of the Caliphate Group.

As bin Laden saw it, the problem was that the group's full name, al-Qaida al-Jihad, or The Base of Holy War, had become short-handed as simply al-Qaida. Lopping off the word "jihad," bin Laden wrote, allowed the West to "claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam." Maybe it was time for al-Qaida to bring back its original name.

The letter, which was undated, was discovered among bin Laden's recent writings. Navy SEALs stormed his compound and killed him before any name change could be made. The letter was described by senior administration, national security and other U.S. officials only on condition of anonymity because the materials are sensitive. The documents portray bin Laden as a terrorist chief executive, struggling to sell holy war for a company in crisis.

At the White House, the documents were taken as positive reinforcement for President Barack Obama's effort to eliminate religiously charged words from the government's language of terrorism. Words like "jihad," which also has a peaceful religious meaning, are out. "Islamic radical" has been nixed in favor of "terrorist" and "mass murderer." Though former members of President George W. Bush's administration have backed that effort, it also has drawn ridicule from critics who said the president was being too politically correct.

"The information that we recovered from bin Laden's compound shows al-Qaida under enormous strain," Obama said Wednesday in his speech to the nation on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. "Bin Laden expressed concern that al-Qaida had been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that had been killed and that al-Qaida has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam, thereby draining more widespread support."

Bin Laden wrote his musings about renaming al-Qaida as a letter but, as with many of his writings, the recipient was not identified. Intelligence officials have determined that bin Laden only communicated with his most senior commanders, including his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and his No. 3, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, according to one U.S. official. Because of the courier system bin Laden used, it's unclear to U.S. intelligence whether the letter ever was sent.

Al-Yazid was killed in a U.S. airstrike last year. Zawahri has replaced bin Laden as head of al-Qaida.

In one letter sent to Zawahri within the past year or so, bin Laden said al-Qaida's image was suffering because of attacks that have killed Muslims, particularly in Iraq, officials said. In other journal entries and letters, they said, bin Laden wrote that he was frustrated that many of his trusted longtime comrades, whom he'd fought alongside in Afghanistan, had been killed or captured.

Using his courier system, bin Laden could still exercise some operational control over al-Qaida. But increasingly the men he was directing were younger and inexperienced. Frequently, the generals who had vouched for these young fighters were dead or in prison. And bin Laden, unable to leave his walled compound and with no phone or Internet access, was annoyed that he did not know so many people in his own organization.

The U.S. has essentially completed the review of documents taken from bin Laden's compound, officials said, though intelligence analysts will continue to mine the data for a long time.

___

Follow Matt Apuzzo at http://twitter.com/mattapuzzo

View the original article here

Read more »

Madoff trustee triples JPMorgan suit to $19 billion (Reuters)

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The trustee seeking money for Bernard Madoff's victims is now demanding $19 billion in damages from JPMorgan Chase & Co, more than tripling what he hopes to recover from what had been the main bank for the now-imprisoned Ponzi schemer.

The amended complaint by the trustee Irving Picard adds new charges and was filed three days after the second-largest U.S. bank agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fraud charges.

Picard maintained that JPMorgan was "thoroughly complicit" in Madoff's fraud and ignored red flags. In his original complaint, made public in February, he had sought $6.4 billion, including $5.4 billion of damages and $1 billion for fraudulent transfers and claims.

"JPMorgan Chase chose to enable Madoff's fraud, not just through the various ways it participated in its activity, but by helping to cover Madoff's naked theft with the imprimatur of a globally recognized financial institution," the 155-page amended complaint said.

The higher damage request reflects "life-to-date damages," or what the trustee considers the minimum losses over the entirety of Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Picard is also seeking at least $500 million that JPMorgan made "off the backs of Madoff's victims," and more than $400 million of alleged fraudulent transfers.

Tasha Pelio, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, repeated in an email the bank's earlier statement that Picard's lawsuit is meritless and distorts the facts and law.

"JPMorgan did not know about or in any way become a party to the fraud orchestrated by Bernard Madoff," she said. "At all times, JPMorgan complied fully with all laws and regulations governing bank accounts."

Picard has filed roughly 1,050 lawsuits seeking more than $100 billion for former investors at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

"BEFORE THEIR VERY EYES"

The amended JPMorgan complaint adds new allegations that another financial services company around 1997 investigated nearly daily transfers of $1 million to $10 million between Madoff's account there and his account at Chase.

It said that company questioned Madoff's employees about the suspicious back-and-forth transfers. Having failed to be satisfied about them, they closed Madoff's account, it said.

"JPMorgan Chase's bankers literally watched the fraud unfold before their very eyes," Deborah Renner, a lawyer representing Picard, said in a statement. Both are partners at the law firm Baker & Hostetler.

The amended complaint also discusses Madoff's longtime relationship with Sterling Equities, a private banking customer of JPMorgan founded by Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, owners of the New York Mets baseball team.

Picard has sued the Mets' owners for $1 billion, prompting them to enter talks to sell part of the team to hedge fund manager David Einhorn for $200 million. [ID:nN26247232] The owners have denied knowing Madoff was committing fraud.

In a regulatory filing last month, JPMorgan estimated that as of March 31 it might have to pay out as much as $4.5 billion more for litigation than it had set aside for that purpose. It also said it faced more than 10,000 legal proceedings.

Tuesday's SEC accord resolved charges that JPMorgan did not tell investors that a hedge fund helped shape -- and then bet against -- complex mortgage securities they bought.

HSBC, BANK MEDICI, UNICREDIT ALSO SUED

Picard's case against JPMorgan is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon.

It is one of three high-profile Madoff lawsuits that have been moved to federal district court, where juries can hear cases, from bankruptcy court, where Picard originally sued.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff is reviewing some issues in Picard's $9 billion case against HSBC Holdings Plc.

Rakoff is also considering whether the trustee can invoke racketeering law in a $58.8 billion lawsuit against Italy's UniCredit SpA, Austria's Bank Medici AG and its founder Sonja Kohn, and other defendants.

JPMorgan has until August 1 to respond to the amended complaint, Picard said.

Madoff, 73, was arrested on December 11, 2008, and after pleading guilty is serving a 150-year prison sentence.

JPMorgan shares fell 16 cents in after-hours trading, after closing Friday's session down 58 cents at $39.49.

The cases are Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-ap-04932; and Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-00913.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Jochelle Mendonca in Bangalore; editing by Andre Grenon, Gary Hill)

View the original article here

Read more »