Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Bernard L. Madoff $50 Billion Investment Fraud

Recommended Posts

Guest Wow

It is amazing that the former president of NASDAQ drew almost all of the funds from high net-worth private clients who were recruited by brokers working on commission. Bernie’s clients included many multi-millionaires and billionaires from Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere, as well as the US’s largest hedge funds (RMF Division of the Man Group and the Tremont).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xguest

Man is a world-leading alternative investment management business. With a broad range of funds for institutional and private investors globally, it is known for its performance, innovative product design and investor service. Man manages about USD50 billion and employs 1,800 people in 14 countries worldwide.


The original business was founded in 1783. Today, Man Group plc is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a member of the FTSE 100 Index, with a market capitalisation of over USD5 billion.


Man Group is a member of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index and the FTSE4Good Index. Man supports many awards, charities and initiatives around the world, including sponsorship of the Man Booker literary prizes. Further information can be found at




Registered in England No. 2921462. Registered Office: Sugar Quay, Lower Thames Street, London EC3R 6DU, England.



Tremont Capital Management is an established leader in the investment management of fund of hedge fund products and multi-manager portfolios. We are dedicated to providing our clients with quality risk-adjusted returns on a consistent basis over the long-term. Within a framework of disciplined risk budgeting and monitoring, we employ a strategic investment approach that is considered as rigorous as it is innovative. Our bottom line is to help our investors achieve their goals through the identification of opportunities to deliver alpha amidst ever-changing market conditions.


Tremont has been at the forefront in setting the standard in the industry for fund of hedge funds investment management. Effective investment strategies and oversight, thorough manager research, careful due diligence, advanced risk allocation and time-tested portfolio management form the cornerstones of a comprehensive platform that has been refined over a 23-year span of dedicated strides to maximize our clients' objectives. Our established performance history and our focus on client service distinguishes the firm at a time when the influx of new entrants creates choice but not the certainty of experience.


Corporate Headquarters

Tremont Group Holdings, Inc.

555 Theodore Fremd Avenue

Rye, New York 10580

T: 914.925.1140

F: 914.921.3499

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sharon Boothe

Litigation sparked by financial losses investors attribute to the conduct of alleged Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff will be the focus of a conference at the Harvard Club here on February 25, 2009.



The program is being produced by HB Litigation Conferences, formerly Mealey's Conferences.



Below is a brief overview of the six sessions currently on the agenda, the topics addressed in each, and some of the speakers - drawn from the most talented in this field of law. The full faculty is being assembled now. For the latest information, visit www.litigationconferences.com and go to the site's "Conferences" section.



First. "Overview of the Madoff Investment Fraud." Who were all the parties involved? Where was the SEC? Who might be targeted for litigation? How was the fund set up and how did it collapse? Speaker: Anthony Paccione, Esq., Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York.



Second. "Investor Litigation." Collecting from third parties. Class actions versus direct litigation. Can foreign investors sue in the US? Fairfield, RIE/Tremont, and Ascot. Liability vs. collectability. Speakers: Harry Susman, Esq., Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, and Scott Berman, Esq., Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Aldeman, LLP, New York.



Third. "Clawback Litigation." Lessons learned from the Bayou case from New York bankruptcy court. Which investors may be targeted and what is the likely outcome? Will investors be required to return principal as well as profits? Do indirect investors face less clawback risk than direct investors? Is the filing of SIPC claims prejudicial to clawback defendants? Speakers: Philip Bentley, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, and Jeff Marwill, Esq., Winston & Strawn, Chicago.



Fourth. "The Role of the SIPC." What are its powers? How does it operate? The role of the receivers.



Fifth. "The Tax Issues." What are the implications for tax disputes? Litigation against the IRS.



Sixth. "Offshore Funds." Bermuda and Cayman Island Funds. Funds put into receivership. Speaker: Geoff Varga, Member, Restructuring Corporate and Forensic Services, Kinetic Partners, Grand Cayman.



A networking reception will follow. The price of the program is $495 and is fully accredited for continuing legal education.



For more information write to Sharon Boothe at Sharon.Boothe@LitigationConferences.com or call (484) 324-2755 x208.



HB Litigation Conferences LLC, formerly Mealey's Conferences, is a leading provider of legal education conferences, teleconferences and multimedia content covering complex commercial and financial litigation, insurance and reinsurance litigation, toxic torts and products liability litigation, and construction defects litigation. It is an independent provider whose goal is to create premium networking and educational events for attorneys and executives.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Trevor Allen

American Masters Broad Market Prime Fund has filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against defendants Tremont Group Holdings Inc. , Oppenheimer Acquisition Corporation, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. , and Ernst & Young LLP.


According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that from January 1, 2003 until the present unbeknownst to investors, defendant Tremont Group Holdings Inc., general partner of the Fund, concentrated over half of its investment capital with entities that participated in the massive, fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff. Investors who entrusted their savings to Tremont Group Holdings Inc. have suffered millions in damages and are faced with financial ruin. The investor alleges that defendants failed to perform the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to perform as investment managers and fiduciaries and that the defendants either knew or should have known that the Fund's assets were employed as part of a massive Ponzi scheme and took no steps in a good faith effort to prevent or remedy that situation, proximately causing billions of dollars of losses and possible complete collapse of the Fund, so the lawsuit. Additionally the plaintiff alleges that the defendants issued an Offering Memorandum that was false and misleading because it omitted to state that Tremont Group Holdings Inc. had, with no or inadequate due diligence or oversight, abdicated its responsibility and entrusted Fund assets to Madoff- run investment vehicles. Oppenheimer and Mass Mutual are named defendants as controlling persons of the Fund, and Ernst and Young is a named defendant as the Fund's auditor.


Contact Person:

Trevor Allen

General Manager

Phone: +1-(858)-779-1554


Web: www.ShareholdersFoundation.com

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fed Up

I think the media should be looking more Bernard Madoff's partner in crime Jacob Ezra Merkin and Bank Leumi. And when they are done with that they can tackle Cerberus.


Cerberus (Greek: Κέρβερος, Kérberos) is the name given to the entity which, in Greek and Roman mythology, is a multi-headed dog which guards the gates of Hades, to prevent those who have crossed the river Styx from ever escaping.


Merkin's Cerberus Capital Management (dba, Cerberus-Gabriel), bought Israel's Bank Leumi from the Israeli government headed by Ariel Sharon and then finance minister Ehud Olmert. Cerberus-Gabriel group paid 16% premium over market value for Bank Leumi in 2005. In January 2007, Israeli State Prosecutor Eran Shendar ordered police to begin a criminal investigation into Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, on suspicion of having influenced the sale of a controlling stake in Bank Leumi.


Merkin was also head of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its international units.


Here are some of Cerberus Capital Management holdings


Chrysler Holding LLC

Auburn Hills, MI

Chrysler designs, manufactures and sells vehicles under the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge brands. Chrysler also offers financial services for its vehicles through Chrysler Financial.




GMAC Financial Services

Detroit, Michigan

GMAC Financial Services (GMAC) is a global financial services company. GMAC maintains a diversified portfolio of business operations, including automotive and commercial finance, dealer and personal line insurance and real estate finance. GMAC currently operates in approximately 40 countries.




Here is the complete list


ACE Aviation Holdings

AerCap Aviation Solutions

Albertson's LLC


Aozora Bank Ltd.

ATC Group Services, Inc.

Bank Leumi


Blue Bird




CML International Holdings, LLC

CTA Acoustics

Four Points Media

GMAC Financial Services

GSW Berlin GmbH

Guilford Mills

Handel und Kredit Bankhaus

IAP Worldwide Services


Kokusai Kogyo KK

LNR Property Corporation

NewPage Corporation

North American Bus Industries

Rafaella Apparel Group

Scottish RE

Showa Jisho Co. Ltd.

Spyglass Entertainment

Strategic Restaurant Acquisition Group

Talecris Biotherapeutics

Torex Retail Holdings Limited

Tower Automotive

Traxis Financial Group

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

United States v. Bernard L. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC).


United States v. Bernard L. Madoff has been assigned to United States District Judge Denny Chin. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.


On March 10, 2009, a Criminal Information was filed in Manhattan federal court charging Bernard L. Madoff with eleven felony charges including securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, false statements, perjury, false filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and theft from an employee benefit plan. There is no plea agreement between the Government and the defendant.


On March 12, 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to all eleven counts in the Information. Madoff faces a statutory maximum sentence of 150 years’ incarceration.Madoff is also subject to mandatory restitution and faces fines up to twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offenses. The Criminal Information also includes forfeiture allegations which would require Madoff to forfeit the proceeds of the charged crimes, as well as all property involved in the money laundering offenses and all property traceable to such property.


The COURT: Mr. Madoff, would you state your full name for the record please.


THE DEFENDANT: Bernard L. Madoff


THE COURT: And how old are you, sir?


THE DEFENDANT: Seventy years old.


THE COURT: And what is your highest level of schooling?


THE DEFENDANT: I graduated Hofstra University, attended one year at Brooklyn Law School.


THE COURT: Are you now or have you recently been under the care or treatment of a doctor or psychiatrist?


THE DEFENDANT: No, I have not.


THE COURT: Have you ever been hospitalized for any mental illness or any type of addiction, including drug or alcohol addiction?




THE COURT: In the past 24 hours have you taken any drugs, medicine, or pills, or have you drunk any alcohol?




THE COURT: Is your mind clear today?




THE COURT: And are you feeling all right today?




THE COURT: Now, you have been represented in this matter by Mr. Sorkin?




THE COURT: And are you satisfied with his representation of you so far?




THE COURT: And do you understand that we are here today to consider the potential conflicts of interest that Mr. Sorkin may have in representing you?




THE COURT: Now, there are two areas. I guess there's a third area which I will be mentioning, but in particular there are two areas.


The first, as I understand it, is that in the 1990s, Mr. Sorkin represented Frank Avellino, Michael Bienes and their accounting firm, Avellino & Bienes. Did Mr. Sorkin discuss this with you?


THE DEFENDANT: Yes, he did.


THE COURT: And I gather you've also discussed it with Mr. Chavkin?




THE COURT: And have you had enough time to discuss this matter with both Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Chavkin?




THE COURT: Now, this representation by Mr. Sorkin of Avellino and Bienes was in connection with a civil case brought against them by the Securities and Exchange Commission. And as I understand it, the matter was settled in 1993. You are aware of these facts?




THE COURT: And, Mr. Sorkin, your representation of them terminated when?


MR. SORKIN: At the time that the -- I believe the consent injunction was filed. I thought it was '92, maybe '93, but that was the end of my representation.


THE COURT: Whether it was '92 or '93, that was it?


MR. SORKIN: That was it, your Honor.


THE COURT: Thank you.


Now, Mr. Madoff, as I understand it, you had a long-standing business relation with both Mr. Avellino and Mr. Bienes, is that true?


THE DEFENDANT: That's true.


THE COURT: And after Avellino & Bienes dissolved, you or your company took on some of their clients, is that true.


THE DEFENDANT: Correct, yes.


THE COURT: Now, these facts create a potential conflict of interest because if this matter were to go to trial, it is possible that the government might call Mr. Avellino or Mr. Bienes to testify as witness against you. Do you understand that that is the possibility?




THE COURT: And no one can say with any certainty at this point whether these former clients of Mr. Sorkin would be called to testify if the case were to go to trial. But, if that were to happen Mr. Sorkin might be limited in his ability to defend you. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: Because he might have limitations on his ability to cross-examine them because they would be his former clients. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: And the fact that Mr. Sorkin previously represented these individuals and their company could cause him to have divided loyalties between you and these potential witnesses. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: And, for example, the communications that Mr. Sorkin had with his former clients while he was representing them would be priviledged by the -- covered by the attorney-client privlege. And unless they waive that privilege, he would no be able to use any of that information that he gained while representing them in his efforts to defend you. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: Because of his prior representation, Mr. Sorkin might not be permitted to cross-examine his former clients were they to testify against you. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: Do you understand that these are only examples, and that it is possible that other scenarios might unfold where Mr. Sorkin's prior representation of these individuals could ask -- adversely affect his ability to represent you in this case?




THE COURT: Now, so that I can be sure that you understand, would you tell me in your own words what you understand this potential conflict to be.


THE DEFENDANT: Well, I understand that if there were -- if there was a trial, and if these gentlemen were called as witnesses, then Mr. Sorkin would be limited in revealing any confidential client privileged information, attorney-client privilege information he may have. I also realize that he might not be -- he would not be able to cross-examine them. I do realize that if that were to arise, I could have an independent counsel cross-examine them, and that he would have to be available immediately, providing the Court allow that to occur.


I understand that his -- he might have compromised interests because his son -- sons had a --


THE COURT: Well, let's hold off on the son's for a moment. I'll come to that in a bit. All right. I'm satisfied you understand the potential conflict with respect to the former client, so let's turn to the second area of potential conflict.


As I understand it, at some point Mr. Sorkin's parents had invested approximately $900,000.00 with your company, the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. And as I understand it, when Mr. Sorkin's parents died, the $900,000.00 investment was transferred into trust accounts that had been established for the benefit of Mr. Sorkin's sons. I understand that Mr. Sorkin himself never had a benificial interest in the funds, and that further, the funds were transferred to Merrill Lynch in approximately August of 2007.


You are aware of these facts?




THE COURT: And you've discussed them with both Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Chavkin?




THE COURT: And have you had enough time to discuss this matter with both Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Chavkin?




THE COURT: Now, as I understand it, Mr. Sorkin's sons did not lose any money because the full $900,000.00 was transferred to Merrill Lynch in 2007. But there is a possibility that the Court appointed trustee from Madoff Securities could bring litigation against Mr. Sorkin's sons to try to undo this transfer, to try and bring the moneys back into a larger pot for victims. In other words, it is possible the trustees could sue Mr. Sorkin's sons to get the money back, and if the trustee were to do this, then it is possible that they then would turn around and sue you.


Do you understand that is a possibility?




THE COURT: And if that were to happen, then Mr. Sorkin's loyalties could be divided between you and his sons. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: For example, these divided loyalties could possibly affect the way Mr. Sorkin represented you in challenging any requests by the government for restitution or fpr fines. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: These divided loyalties could affect Mr. Sorkin's representation of you with respect to arguments that he might make to the Court at sentencing, should you be convicted, or as to decisions as what witness to call or what evidence to present, should there be a hearing required for sentencing or should there be a trial required. Do you understand that?




THE COURT: Okay. So now, so that I can be sure you understand, tell me in your own words what you understand this potential conflict to be.


THE DEFENDANT: I understant that potentially in the issue of restitution, his interests would be divided or might be divided and the he might no defend me in a way that's most beneficial to me.




MR. SORKIN: Your Honor, may I just make one -- respectfully, your Honor said the trust account was transferred. The only point I wanted to make is the trust account was closed to Bernard L. Madoff on my mother's death, and then the money was transferred out.


THE COURT: All right. The accounts were closed first and the moneys?


MR. SORKIN: First, and then the money was transferred out, the one account was closed and the accounts -- the account was transferred out. Thank you.

Edited by Luke_Wilbur

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thank You
Now, Mr. Madoff, as I understand it, you had a long-standing business relation with both Mr. Avellino and Mr. Bienes, is that true?


THE DEFENDANT: That's true.


THE COURT: And after Avellino & Bienes dissolved, you or your company took on some of their clients, is that true.


THE DEFENDANT: Correct, yes.


Frank J. Avellino has been swindling people with Madoff for over 16 years. Some believe Avellino introduced the Ponzi scheme concept to Madoff and taught Madoff how it would work. In 1992, the SEC investigated Avellino in an illegal $440 million securities case, but let him go.


Avellino is hiding out in his New York apartment.


Frank Avellino

(212) 396-0404

655 Park Ave,

New York, NY 10065


His campaign contributions can be seen here:




Michael S. Bienes began his career working as an accountant for Madoff's father-in-law, Sol Alpern.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maxed Out

Is the country suffering from deregulation? The answer to that seems fairly obvious. Maddoff.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.