Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/10/2014 (Settlement preliminarily approval)

Filing Date: December 10, 2010

According to the complaint filed December 10, 2010, the Defendants willfully ignored or were exceedingly reckless in turning a blind eye to many obvious red flags surrounding Bernard Madoff, including that his remarkably consistent double-digit returns could not possibly be achieved.

The Maxam Absolute Return Fund, L.P., was created as a feeder fund to Madoff allowed the Defendants to collect higher fees. The Investment Manager of the Fund, charged monthly management fees equal to 0.083% of the Net Asset Value of each Limited Partner’s Capital Account.

By the time Madoff’s Ponzi scheme collapsed, the Maxam Defendants had invested over $300 million of investor money into Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and redeemed almost a third of that amount between 2007 and December 11, 2008. During the 90 day period prior to December 11, 2008, there was $25 million in withdrawals that were transferred from the Fund to the Company, and subsequently, to certain of its investors.

The action has been stayed since the order entered on May 31, 2011. On May 16, 2013, the Court issued an Order lifting the stay for the sole purpose of permitting plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff did so on June 17.

On April 25, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 10th.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Other (Mutual Fund)
Headquarters: Canada

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 #: 10-CV-09260
JUDGE: Hon. Leonard B. Sand
DATE FILED: 12/10/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/30/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date