When the shyster support the Ponzi - Ponta Negra scam
suf...@hotmail.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
551 Fifth Avenue
21st Floor
New York, New York 10176
T: (212) 947-3793
F: (212) 947-3196
50 California Street
Suite 2320
San Francisco, California 94111
T: (415) 490-0561
F: (415) 391-1377
March 19, 2009
By Email brontecapital(at)gmail.com
John Hempton
Bronte Capital
Dear Mr. Hempton:
Please be advised that this firm is U.S. legal counsel to (i) Ponta
Negra Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Investment
Manager") (ii) Ponta Negra Group GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("General Partner") (iii) Ponta Negra Offshore Fund I, Ltd., a
Cayman Islands exempted company ("Offshore Fund") and (iv) Ponta Negra
Master Fund I, LP., a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership
("Master Fund") The Investment Manager provides investment management
and advisory services to the Offshore Fund and the Master Fund, and
the General Partner serves as the general partner of the Master Fund.
The Investment Manager also provides investment management and
advisory services to Ponta Negra Fund I, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("Onshore Fund" and, together with the Investment
Manager, the General Partner, the Offshore Fund and the Master Fund,
"Ponta Negra") which employs the same strategy as the Master Fund and
trades par! passu with the Master Fund.
I write regarding (1) inaccurate, misleading and libelous statements
contained in two "articles" on your blog "bronteeapital.blogspot.com"
entitled "Curiouser and Curiouser" (posted on March 18, 2009) and
"Fund marketing material" (posted on March 17, 2009) (collectively,
"Posts") and (2) the uploading and posting of Ponta Negra' s
confidential information - the February 2009 and May 2008 letters to
investors (collectively, "Investor Letters" - on the www.scribd.com
website ("Scribd").
The conduct you have engaged in is illegal. In your March 17th Post,
as an introduction to the presentation of Ponta Negra's February 2009
confidential Investor Letter, you state that you "have identified a
couple of frauds" by reading those letters from fund managers "more
successful than [you]" that did not make sense to you. You then ask
your readers to explain the Ponta Negra strategy to you, thereby
linking Ponta Negra to those funds you have uncovered as "frauds". In
turning to your readers, rather than seeking an explanation from Ponta
Negra to your questions concerning its strategy and performance
results, you proceeded to post Ponta Negra's confidential information
on both your blog and on Seribd. By presenting material from Ponta
Negra's confidential Investor Letter in this manner, you imply that
because you do not understand the strategy, Ponta Negra must be
engaged in a fraud. Although the Posts do not mention Ponta Negra by
name, by uploading Ponta Negra's confidential Investor Letters on
Scribd under the "BronteCapital" screen name, a reader can easily
determine to which fund you are referring in your blog. Your Posts
constitute libel in that you accuse Ponta Negra of committing a
punishable crime, when in fact, Ponta Negra maintains that it did not
and has not engaged in any such conduct.
In your subsequent Post on March 18th, you note that the confidential
Investor Letter you had in your possession made no mention of an
auditor or a custodian. As the Investor Letters are internal, interim
letters to existing Ponta Negra investors, Ponta Negra has already
provided its auditor and custodian information to investors in its
fund documentation and in other prior communications. You noted that
you found it "very strange" that when you called the number listed on
the Investor Letter your call went to a "mobile in Texas." As it so
happens, Ponta Negra recently hired one of its former external
marketers to come in-house and market Ponta Negra. The external
marketer is located in Texas and the recent hire is in the process of
moving to New York, but has not completed his move yet. Like your
March 17th post, instead of doing your diligence and asking questions
of Ponta Negra directly, you chose to post information which leads
reader to believe that there is something wrong with Ponta Negra and
its operations, which is nothing more than baseless speculation on
your part.
With respect to the Investor Letters posted on your blog and uploaded
to Seribd, these letters are subject to various confidentiality
provisions pursuant to the agreements in place between Ponta Negra and
its clients. In providing you with copies of the Investor Letters, one
or more Ponta Negra investors breached their agreement with Ponta
Negra. Having notified you of the confidential nature of these
documents and of the confidentiality obligations in place, any
distribution, in any form, constitutes tortuous interference of Ponta
Negra' s contractual relationship with its investors. We hereby demand
that you (1) immediately return to my clients all copies of the
Investor Letters and any other Ponta Negra information you have in
your possession, (2) certify in an affidavit that you have destroyed
all other copies of such Ponta Negra information and have not
distributed such information to any other person(s), and advise in
writing the name(s) of the person(s) that provided you with the
Investor Letters.
Accordingly, we demand that you (1) keep the Posts and related
comments permanently off of your website and cease publishing the
Posts and related comments by any means, (2) remove any links to and/
or cached versions of the Investor Letters on any search engine sites,
like Google' (3) discontinue any further distribution of Ponta Negra's
confidential information (e.g., the Investor Letters) and continue to
keep the Investor Letters permanently off of Scribd and any other
website, (4) agree to no longer refer to, whether directly or
indirectly, Ponta Negra, in any context, and (5) provide Ponta Negra
with the name(s) and contact information for the individual(s) who
provided you with the Investor Letters.
To the extent that you fail to honor your commitment to keep the Posts
and Investor Letters offline or fail to timely take the aforementioned
actions, my clients will immediately pursue any and all legal remedies
available to them.
Very truly yours,
Douglas R. Hirsch
SOURCE:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14713883/Ponta-Negra-First-Lawyers-Threat
AND SEE:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21012.htm
suf...@hotmail.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
551 Fifth Avenue
21st Floor
New York, New York 10176
T: (212) 947-3793
F: (212) 947-3196
50 California Street
Suite 2320
San Francisco, California 94111
T: (415) 490-0561
F: (415) 391-1377
By Email (brontecapita(at)gmail.com)
March 25, 2009
John Hempton
Bronte Capital
Dear Mr. Hempton:
With respect to your email sent March 20, 2009 requesting information
that a "prospective institutional client would want before investing
in the fund," Ponta Negra respectfully declines to provide you with
any of the requested materials. Only after an in-depth vetting of
potential institutional investors would Ponta Negra even consider
providing the information you have requested.
Additionally, an institutional investor does its due diligence upfront
and in a straight forward manner and does not back into an investment
or the due diligence process like you have done. As a "blogger," your
conduct to date has set you apart from an institutional investor and
thus, Ponta Negra sees no point in providing you with the requested
information. You are a "blogger" with an agenda to tarnish the
reputation of Ponta Negra, who has posted libelous statements about
Ponta Negra on your blog and who has uploaded and distributed the
proprietary, confidential information of Ponta Negra on the internet.
As a result of this conduct, Ponta Negra has no interest in having you
as an investor, nor would Ponta Negra even be interested in commencing
the client vetting process with you.
We hereby repeat that you comply with all of our previous demands made
in our March letter to you. Additionally, we demand that you (1)
discontinue contacting anyone at Ponta Negra, including, but not
limited to, its principals and employees, and anyone at Ponta Negra's
third party service providers, whether by email, phone, facsimile or
otherwise, (2) agree to no longer refer to, whether directly or
indirectly, Ponta Negra, its principals or its employees, in any
context and in any forum, and (3) remove any links to and/or cached
versions of the Investor Letters on any search engine sites, like Go
ogle 1.
1 See the following link for removal of Cached Pages from Google:
http://wwwgoog1e.com!support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?h1en&answer=3
5306
To the extent that you fail to honor your commitment to keep the Posts
and Investor Letters offline or fail to take the aforementioned
actions within five (5) business days, my clients will immediately
pursue any and all legal remedies available to them both here in the
United States and in Australia.
suf...@hotmail.com
Litigation Release No. 21012 / April 27, 2009
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ponta Negra Fund I, LLC et al,
Civ. Action No. 1:09-CV-00324-SS (United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas).
SEC Halts On-Going Multi-Million Dollar Fraud Involving Investments in
a Connecticut-Based Hedge Fund
On April 27, 2009, the Commission filed an emergency action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to halt
an on-going multi-million dollar fraud involving investments in a
Stamford, Connecticut-based hedge fund and its affiliates -- Ponta
Negra Fund I, LLC, Ponta Negra Offshore Fund I, Ltd., and Ponta Negra
Group, LLC (the “Hedge Fund”). The Commission’s complaint alleges,
among other things, that Defendant Francesco Rusciano, 27, of
Stamford, Connecticut, in selling interests in the Hedge Fund, (i)
forged documents, (ii) promised false returns, and (iii)
misrepresented assets managed by the Hedge Fund. U.S. District Judge
Sam Sparks granted a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and
other emergency relief against the Defendants.
The Commission’s complaint alleges that from at least as early as
September 1, 2007 to the present, the Hedge Fund, acting through
Rusciano, raised at least $31 million from at least 15 investors.
According to the Commission’s complaint, on at least two occasions,
Rusciano forged brokerage account statements for the Hedge Fund to
make it appear that the Hedge Fund had millions of dollars more in
assets than it actually had. Specifically, the Commission alleges that
Rusciano provided a selling agent for the Hedge Fund a January 11,
2008 brokerage statement, reflecting an account balance for Ponta
Negra Fund I of $42,967,338.90. According to the Commission’s
complaint, the correct balance for that account as of January 11, 2008
was $2,967,338.90 -- $40 million less than the amount represented by
Rusciano. Similarly, the Commission alleges that, on August 5, 2008,
Rusciano produced to another selling agent a brokerage account
statement reflecting an “equity” balance for Ponta Negra Fund, LLC of
more $64 million. According to the Commission’s complaint, Rusciano
altered the August 1, 2008 account statement by, among other things,
redacting the word “excess” in the “excess equity” field on the
account statement to make it appear as though the Hedge Fund had in
excess of $64 million in that account. In reality, the account had
less than $7 million.
According to the Commission’s complaint, Rusciano also misrepresented
the Hedge Fund’s monthly and yearly performance results. With regard
to monthly returns, the Commission alleges that Rusciano falsely
represented that the Hedge Fund had consistently achieved positive
results for every month throughout 2007 and 2008. In fact, in the
account that held most of its assets, the Hedge Fund lost money in 10
of the 24 months from March 2007 through March 2009. With regard to
yearly results, the Commission alleges that Rusciano misrepresented
that the Hedge Fund earned total annual returns of 42.99% for 2007,
24.85% for 2008, and 6.14% for the first two months of 2009. In
reality, the account that held most of the Hedge Funds’ assets
suffered substantial trading losses in 2007, had modest profits in
2008, and again sustained losses in 2009. Finally, the Commission
alleges that, on April 21, 2009, Rusciano sent an email to a selling
agent for the Hedge Fund, detailing the Hedge Fund’s assets under
management. According to the e-mail, the Hedge Fund had $59 million in
assets under management as of February 2009. According to the
Commission’s complaint, the Hedge Fund had less than $10 million.
The complaint alleges that Defendants Ponta Negra Fund I, LLC, Ponta
Negra Offshore Fund I, Ltd., Ponta Negra Group, LLC, and Francesco
Rusciano violated the anti-fraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the emergency
relief granted by the Court, the Commission seeks permanent
injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment
interest, and civil money penalties against the Defendants.
SEC Complaint in this matter
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21012.htm
suf...@hotmail.com
There is a big world out there
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Alleged fraudulent hedge fund associated with the Vice President’s
family harasses blogger
I wrote a post about Ponta Negra – a hedge fund that I thought was
more likely than not to be fraudulent. I did not name Ponta Negra in
the post but I put two of their marketing documents on the web and
some people found them.
I withdrew that post after threats from lawyers. I also removed the
documents from the web.
I have reposted the two marketing documents I have from Ponta Negra
here and here and the first threat from the lawyer here.
I have done this because Francesco Rusciano of Ponta Negra has
formally had his assets frozen by a Federal Judge at the request of
the SEC. Also see here for the formal charges.
Anyway I asked the lawyers for the things that I would need to do due
diligence on Ponta Negra – that is the identity of the auditor,
permission to talk to the auditor, identity of the prime broker and
permission to talk to the prime broker.
I was denied. The lawyers argued that I was "just a blogger". Their
denial letter is here.
The first marketing document however identified a supposed prime
broker as Citigroup. I wrote to citigroup several times – and spoke
to senior people in their government relations area and told Citigroup
the entire story. I believe that Citigroup did not react
appropriately to a fraud committed in their name.
Anyway I will save you the suspense. All of this would not be the
biggest story on my blog except that Ponta Negra is marketed out of
the office of Paradigm Global – a fund of hedge funds owned and
controlled by Hunter Biden and James Biden. Hunter and James are the
son and brother of Vice President Joe Biden respectively.
You can find this several ways.
1. Ponta Negra gives its address in the second marketing document as
650 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor. This is the same address as Paradigm
Global.
2. The contact on the first marketing document for Ponta Negra is
Jeffry Schneider. This is the same Jeffry Schneider who is quoted in
this Wall Street Journal article as being the marketer for Paradigm
Global and effectively spins for the Bidens.
3. This SEC filing gives an address and phone number for Ponta Negra.
The address and phone number is a number through the switchboard of
Paradigm Global and until recently it was a way of getting into
contact with Ponta Negra.
At a minimum Paradigm Global – a fund of fund managers owned the Vice
President’s family housed an alleged fraudster. The alleged fraudster
used the same phone number as the Vice President’s family business,
the same marketing machine and traded off the good name of the Vice
President’s family business.
There are numerous posts about Ponta Negra, Paradigm and other
assorted entities (Onyx Capital for one) that I have withheld posting
on. I will put them up as a series. The ties between the Vice
President’s family and some very questionable dealings are very
strong.
The next step for the SEC has the surname Biden. Are they up to it?
To be continued.
John
Posted by John Hempton at 11:37 PM
http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2009/04/fraudulent-hedge-fund-associated-with.html
suf...@hotmail.com
was Law Review. Probably more hot air than intellect however. These
guyz sure try to intimidate.
-------
From Hedge Fund World
http://www.hedgefundworld.com/hirsch-doug.htm
Douglas R. Hirsch
Douglas R. Hirsch is a member of Sadis & Goldberg and is in charge of
the firm's litigation practice. Mr. Hirsch has extensive experience
litigating matters before the Federal and State courts of New York.
Although Mr. Hirsch has handled a wide range of matters during his
career, his practice focuses on the areas of commercial, securities,
real estate, consumer, intellectual property and environmental
litigation. Mr. Hirsch also handles security arbitration matters
before the FINRA and other applicable exchanges.
Prior to joining Sadis & Goldberg LLP, Mr. Hirsch was an associate at
Schulte Roth & Zabel in the litigation department. Earlier in his
career, Mr. Hirsch was a litigation associate at Lord Day & Lord,
Barrett Smith.
Mr. Hirsch is a graduate of Hofstra University School of Law, where he
was a member of the Law Review. He also has a Bachelor of Arts degree
in Political Science from Union College in Schenectady, NY.
The following are publications and published decisions by Mr. Hirsch:
* "Brownfields - Diamonds In The Rough For Municipalities" New
York Environmental Lawyer, Winter 1998.
* "Lender Liability Under CERCLA" - Standard & Poor's Financial &
Banking Review, Spring 1992.
Published Decisions
Reichhold Chemicals v. Textron et. al., 157 F. R. D. 522 (N.D.
Fla. 1994)(holding that the privilege of self-critical analysis could
be used to shield certain environmental data from disclosure, thereby
encouraging companies to investigate historical sources of
contamination).
Mr. Hirsch is a member of the New York and New Jersey Bars.
suf...@hotmail.com
responsibilities on June 21, 2005 at the Harvard Club (he didn't go to
Harvard, oh well...)
http://www.twst.com/conferences/hedgef/hedgef.pdf
Too bad he didn't do due diligence on Ponta Negra and the Bidens ...
or maybe he did and the money was too seductive for him. Perhaps
somebody should ask him:
Douglas R. Hirsch
(212) 573-6670
dhi...@sglawyers.com
http://tinyurl.com/cdts4h
18:30 Hedge Fund Registration:
Legal Responsibilities
• Which funds are required to register? Where do the
exemptions lie?
• What are the deadlines for meeting filing
requirements?
• How does registration vary with fund structure?
• How do registration requirements vary with respect to
offshore and onshore incorporation?
• Where does hedge fund responsibility end and prime
broker responsibility begin?
• What due diligence should be conducted on hedge
fund principals?
• What fraud prevention measures must be
implemented, monitored and updated?
• What does registration mean for requirements to maintain
books and records of performance?
• Where will hedge fund regulations overlap or conflict
with other regulations (such as those that fall under the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission)?
Speakers: Ron S. Geffner, Partner, Sadis & Goldberg LLC
Douglas R. Hirsch, Partner, Sadis & Goldberg LLC