|
|
|
Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Suit
Press Release |
2009/02/03 17:39
|
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed 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 case name is styled Cacoulidis v. Beacon Associates Management Corp., et al., 09 civ. 00777. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com.
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.
If you invested in Beacon Associates LLC I during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by April 3, 2009.
A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiffs. Your ability to share in any recovery, however, is not affected by your decision on whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New York City, San Diego, and West Palm Beach. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. Please visit the Wolf Haldenstein website ( http://www.whafh.com) for more information about the firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRS updates and expands EPCRS procedures
Press Release |
2008/08/24 15:37
|
The IRS has released the long-awaited revenue procedure, updating and expanding the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS), the system of voluntary correction programs for retirement plans. The EPCRS has been expanded to cover additional plan failures and includes streamlined application procedures under the Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) for numerous categories of plan failures. “Employers and plan administrators want to comply with the tax laws and regulations to protect plan participants,” said Michael Julianelle, director of the IRS’s Employee Plans division. “EPCRS helps employers and plan administrators take a proactive role in identifying and fixing mistakes. It also encourages implementation of practices and procedures that ensure retirement plans comply with laws and regulations.” The updated EPCRS revenue procedure generally will be effective January 1, 2009. However, plan sponsors will be permitted to apply the provisions of the updated revenue procedure beginning September 2, 2008. Time to self-correct expanded
The Self-Correction Program (SCP) permits a plan sponsor to correct insignificant operational failures in plans such as qualified plans, 403(b) plans, SEPs or SIMPLE IRA plans without having to notify the IRS and without paying any fee or sanction. The updated procedure expands the SCP in situations where employers discover failures in their plans and have begun the correction process. The time by which a plan sponsor substantially corrects a significant operational failure and is therefore entitled to use the SCP has been liberalized. Sample correction methods for improperly excluded employees for both employer and employee contributions have been added to Appendix A. In addition, sample correction methods for the failure to implement an employee’s elective deferral election and to provide matching contributions have been added to Appendix B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Sues 'Washingtonienne' Author
Press Release |
2008/04/24 15:09
|
Former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Robert Steinbuch sued Jessica Cutler, author of the "Washingtonienne" blog and subsequent book, claiming she invaded his privacy by publishing "in graphic detail the intimate amorous and sexual relationship between Cutler and the Plaintiff," including his alleged predilection for spanking.
Steinbuch also sued Hyperion Books, a division of Disney Publishing Worldwide, which allegedly paid Cutler a $300,000 advance for her book, after her blog became a sensation.
n his federal complaint, Steinbuch says, "At the time of his relationship with Cutler, Plaintiff did not know that Cutler was simultaneously engaged in sexual relationships with another man, let alone with five other men, and let alone that she was prostituting herself to some of them; and Plaintiff did not know that Cutler was recording the details of her relationship with Plaintiff in her blog, and Defendant Cutler described Plaintiff as, among other things, a committee counsel who likes spanking. That blog is the subject of a separate and distinct litigaion.
Steinbuch also claims Cutler profited by "capitalizing on the publicity generated by her blog and her relationship with Plaintiff" by signing a deal with Playboy that included a nude photo spread of her, and the "thinly disguised novel, of the roman a clef genre," in which her relationship with him is "described in graphic detail."
His complaint adds: "Hyperion specifically advertised the book as being in 'a witty, unapologetic voice, the novel's narrator Jackie tells the story of ... the staff counsel whose taste for spanking she "accidentally" leaks to the office.'"
Steinbuch demands $10 million damages for invasion of privacy, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is represented by Jonathan Rosen of Clearwater, Fla. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge blocks Philadelphia from enforcing new gun laws
Press Release |
2008/04/18 14:51
|
A judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the city from enforcing five gun-control ordinances pending a challenge from the National Rifle Association. The NRA argues that state law prevents Pennsylvania municipalities from regulating guns, a view that even the city's crime-weary district attorney shares. "The city has no basis to pass any of these gun-control ordinances and they know it," lawyer C. Scott Shields argued on the NRA's behalf. City lawyers contend that Philadelphia can pass gun-control ordinances if the laws are outside the scope of state measures. As an example, lawyer Mark Zecca told the judge that one Pennsylvania county had banned guns at its courthouse. Among other things, the five city ordinances passed April 10 ban the sale of assault weapons; require owners to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours; and limit firearms purchases to one a month. They came in response to the city's one-a-day murder rate and its reputation for being a weapons source for criminals in New York and other states with strict gun laws. The judge scheduled arguments for April 28. She said she would rule very quickly, although her decision is sure to be appealed by the losing side. Mayor Michael Nutter, who declared a "crime emergency" shortly after taking office in January, quickly signed the City Council bills into law - despite still-pending litigation over earlier gun-control efforts. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
