Beacon Associates Management Corporation

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Beacon Associates Management Corporation Summary: According to a press release dated February 2, 2009, a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against defendants Beacon Associates Management Corp. (“Beacon Associates”), Joel Danziger, Esq. (“Danziger”), Harris Markhoff, Esq. (“Markhoff”), Ivy Asset Management Corp. (“Ivy Asset Management”), the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BONY”), Friedberg Smith & Co., P.C. (“Friedberg Smith”) and John Does 1-100 (collectively, the “Defendants”), on behalf of all persons, other than Defendants, who invested in Beacon Associates LLC I (the “Fund”) from August 9, 2004 until the present (the “Class Period”), and derivatively on behalf of the nominal defendant, Beacon Associates LLC I, to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and common law claims, including breach of fiduciary duties.

The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period, unbeknownst to investors, Defendant Beacon Associates, the Managing Member of the Fund, concentrated more than half of the Fund’s investment capital with entities managed by Bernard Madoff (“Madoff”) or Madoff-related entities. Investors who entrusted their savings to Beacon Associates suffered millions in damages as a result of Madoff’s fraudulent scheme.

This Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to perform the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to perform as investment advisors, managers and fiduciaries, and proximately caused millions of dollars in losses. Defendants either knew or should have known that the Fund’s assets were employed as part of a massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Madoff. Defendants ignored numerous red flags, including the abnormally high and stable positive investment results reportedly achieved by Madoff regardless of market conditions; inconsistencies between Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC’s (“BMIS”) publicly available financial information concerning its assets and the purported amounts that Madoff managed for clients; and the fact that BMIS was audited by a small, obscure accounting firm.

Additionally, Defendants Beacon Associates, Danziger and Markhoff issued an Offering Memorandum that was false and misleading because it falsely stated that the Fund’s assets would be invested in a number of investment vehicles, including a “Large Cap Strategy adopted by Beacon Associates itself, when in reality, unbeknownst to investors, the vast majority of the assets in the Fund were invested in Madoff-controlled entities. The Offering Memorandum also falsely stated that Beacon Associates would monitor the Fund’s performance as well as the performance of each third party manager of the Fund’s assets, to ensure that they adhered to their stated investment objectives. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Beacon Associates, Danziger, Markhoff, and Ivy Asset Management, with no or inadequate due diligence or oversight, abdicated their responsibilities and entrusted the Fund’s assets to Madoff-run investment vehicles. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Friedberg Smith failed to conduct a proper audit of the Fund’s financial statements. Finally, Plaintiffs allege aiding and abetting claims against Ivy Asset Management and BONY.

Plaintiffs have alleged claims on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, as well as common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence and mismanagement, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting claims. Plaintiffs are also suing derivatively on behalf of the Fund for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence and mismanagement, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting.

On May 13, 2009, an order consolidating actions, appointing lead plaintiff and appointing lead counsel was entered into the court record. October 1, 2009, an amended complaint was filed against the defendants in this action. The defendants responded by filing several motions to dismiss on June 11, 2009.

On April 21, 2010, proceedings were held before Judge Leonard B. Sand. According to the Minute Entry, the oral argument was held. Plaintiffs' have sixty (60) days to amend complaint, which they did on June 21, 2010.

On October 6, 2010, an Opinion and Order was issued by the Court granting in part and denying in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of that order on October 19, 2010, which was denied on December 7, 2010.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code:
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Beacon Associates Management Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

John Cacoulidis, et al. v. Beacon Associates Management Corporation, et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00777
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Leonard B. Sand
DATE FILED: 01/27/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/09/2004	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/27/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/27/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/27/2009
Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Appointing Lead Counsel
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 05/13/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Beacon Associates Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00777
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 06/21/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/09/2004	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action And Derivative Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/01/2009
Second Amended Class Action And Derivative Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/21/2010
Opinion & Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/05/2010
Amended Order Resolving Motion For Relief From Consolidation Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/12/2010
Order of Consolidation
Type: Order		Date on the document: 01/10/2011
Stipulation And Proposed Order Dismissing Claims Against Paul Myners
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/22/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/22/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/23/2012

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�