• Home
  • News
  • NY Law School Leads Litigant Pack in Suits Over Alleged $50B Madoff Fraud

Securities Law

NY Law School Leads Litigant Pack in Suits Over Alleged $50B Madoff Fraud

Posted Dec 16, 2008 6:01 PM CST
By Martha Neil

Less than a week after Bernard Madoff's claimed $50 billion hedge fund fraud first came to light, lawsuits are already being filed.

Among the prime targets are apparent victims of the fraud who allegedly didn't do enough to investigate before recommending the massive Ponzi scheme to others. And front and center in this group are other hedge funds that themselves invested in Madoff's enterprise, according to the Associated Press.

"One of the first lawsuits came late Tuesday when New York Law School sued Ascot Partners LP, an investment partnership managed by the chairman of GMAC Financial Services, J. Ezra Merkin," the news agency writes. "The school said it invested $3 million with Ascot in 2006 and that is now worthless due to the 'wrongful conduct' of the defendants."

Allegedly, Ascot never informed investors that it was putting most of their money with Madoff. "They are stunned," attorney Harry Susman of Susman Godfrey, who is representing Ascot investors, tells AP. "Thursday they read about Madoff and thought nothing of it. They woke up Friday morning to learn they were involved."

Other such suits are virtually certain to follow.

"It is clear that there will be extensive litigation around this scandal and that fund-of-funds managers will be exposed to that litigation," professor Steve Thel of Fordham University School of Law tells Fortune magazine.

Such litigation will focus on two issues, Thel says: First, whether managers of hedge funds that invested in Madoff conducted reasonable due diligence. Second, whether they disclosed the nature of the investment to their own investors.

"I am very pessimistic about the ability to recover the investment itself," attorney Michael Tein of Coconut Grove, Fla., tells the National Law Journal, concerning potential litigation against the Madoff firm. "But the fraud is too big for there not to be a problem with banks, brokerage houses, clearinghouses and third party fiduciaries. It's not as if this gentleman kept all his money in-house."

Related coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Why Wasn’t Madoff’s Alleged $50B Ponzi Scheme Discovered Earlier?"

Barron's: "Funds of Funds: Madoff's Victims or Enablers?"

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Dec 16, 2008 7:00 PM CST

I’d say they got their Ascot on that one.

Flag this comment

2.

Bill Dugan
Dec 17, 2008 6:14 AM CST

If these guys lost money, I wonder how much money NYU lost?

Flag this comment

3.

JR
Dec 17, 2008 11:01 AM CST

And if the Ascot fund had told NY Law School it invested with Madoff, would the school have done anything?  I doubt it.

Flag this comment

4.

Robin Hood
Dec 17, 2008 2:11 PM CST

A liberal stole from other liberals

what’s the story here?

Flag this comment

5.

Dan
Dec 19, 2008 7:42 AM CST

Rule #1 of USN≀rankings should be, “If your school loses money in a Ponzi scheme, you’re 4th tier.”

Ok, maybe not #1… but it should be on there.

Flag this comment

6.

Eric
Dec 19, 2008 8:25 AM CST

Rule #1 of jackasses is to cite USN≀in a comment.

Flag this comment

7.

Captain America II
Dec 19, 2008 8:45 AM CST

I believe the entire Made-off clan is in on the ponzi scheme.  The two sons, including a lawyer, and Madoff’s niece, another lawyer, worked at the firm for decades and/or several years.  The sons—Mark and Andrew—each had charitable trusts that were not invested in the Madoff funds, ostensibly to aviod a conflict of interest, but in reality likely a way to shield the funds’ corpus from the scheme.  The boys also bought a fishing company in California last month (see YouTube video of Mark posted on-line), at the very peak of the market crash and weeks before they “turned in” their dad.  It all smells “fishy” to me and others, including Donald Trump, who opined the same thing just yesterday to CNN.  The entire story about how the sons worked in the trading arm and not investment arm and thus there was some type of “Chinese wall” between the fraud and legitimate side of the biz is as disengenous as it is preposterous; there is no way these guys did not know about the scheme, and we all know that the father (btw, he’s also an attorney) confided in Andrew his lawyer son, which communications are likely privileged, with some exceptions that may or may not apply here (i.e., malpractice and/or breach of fiduciary duty to the investors).  Madoff’s nice also happened to be the “compliance attorney,” and we all know that she (and the sons) must have been made aware of the scheme or at least the allegations the SEC investigated years ago.  More will surface, and it’s a fascinating story unfolding by a New York minute.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.