The Massachusetts suit comes the day after Connecticut state court judge Arthur Hiller issued a temporary asset freeze order on the manager of the Fairfield fund, as well as two other Madoff feeder funds. That ruling came in a case filed Monday by David Golub of Stamford’s Silver Golub & Teitell on behalf of several municipal pension funds. Here’s Dealbook’s coverage of Fairfield’s woes, including juicy tidbits from the Massachusetts complaint. And here’s the Law Blog’s take. For more background, check out a Vanity Fair feature on the family behind Fairfield.
Fairfield put out a statement Wednesday afternoon on the Massachusetts filing. “The allegations in the complaint…are false and misleading,” it said in part. “Contrary to the allegations, [Fairfield] conducted vigorous and robust monitoring on an ongoing basis of the Madoff investments. This monitoring was consistent with the representations made to investors in the Sentry funds. [Fairfield] has fully and completely cooperated with the [Massachusetts] investigation. Unfortunately, Massachusetts has leapt to erroneous conclusions without completing its investigation and without even granting a meeting with [Fairfield] in an attempt to arrive at an accurate understanding of the facts.”
Fairfield spokesman Seth Faison confirmed to the Litigation Daily that the fund is being represented in the latest round of cases by Mark Cuhna of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. As we previously reported, Cuhna and Simpson partner Michael Chepiga also represent Fairfield in a New York federal district court case brought by a Pacific West Health pension fund. In that case, we noted in January, Judge Victor Marrero refused to freeze fees paid to Fairfield fund managers.