Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/02/2014 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 08, 2009

According to a press release dated April 8, 2009, the complaint charges the company, its investment managers and its outside auditors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and ERISA. The company is a limited partnership that oversees hedge fund investment portfolios for individual and institutional clients.

The action includes a sub-class of those employee benefit plans which invested with the company during the Class Period, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for breach of fiduciary duty.

The complaint alleges that The company placed significant amounts of investor money into funds managed by Madoff and his firm. Madoff has now been charged with running what may be the largest Ponzi scheme ever. Unbeknownst to investors in its funds, The company had invested approximately 7.5% of its funds in Madoff-managed investments. This was contrary to the duties The company had to its investors of good faith and fair dealing and contrary to the representations The company had made regarding its processes for selecting fund managers. As a result of defendants’ breaches and false statements, the company investors made additional investments in the company and/or held interests they would have redeemed.

On August 13, 2009, the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York under Multi-District Litigation in In Re: Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund Securities & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, case number 1:09-md-02075-TPG.

On October 23, 2009, Judge Thomas P. Griesa signed the Order consolidating several actions under MDL case number, 09md2075. The Operating Engineers Trust Funds, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 705 Pension Fund are appointed Lead Plaintiffs and the law firms of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Hagens Berman Sobel Shapiro LLP are appointed Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the docket in 09 Civ. 3614 (TPG), 09 Civ. 7134 (TPG), and 09 Civ. 7135.

On October 6, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs soon after filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint on December 10, 2010. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on December 23, 2010. The motion is currently pending before the Court.

On December 21, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. All of the securities fraud claims were dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Opinion on January 4, 2013. The Court denied the Motion on April 16, as plaintiffs were given leave to re-plead.

On April 10, 2014, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on May 19.

On October 2, 2014, the Court issued an Order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses. This was followed by an Order granting final approval of the Settlement and dismissing this action with Prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market: Privately Traded
Market Status: Privately Held

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 09-CV-3614
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 04/08/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/02/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 09-MD-02075
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 12/10/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/02/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Seattle)
    1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Seattle), WA 98101
    206-623-7292 206-623-0594 · info@hagens-berman.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date