The escape and evasion tactics are beginning already for marketers and fund of funds that exposed the general public to the toxic sludge that was Bernie Made-off. Fortunately for some hawkers, particularly those in Europe, a hodge-podge of regulatory authorities are likely to create enough confusion to make recovery through entities like UBS very difficult. This from the Financial Times:
UBS sought to absolve itself from any duty to safeguard investor assets in a $1.4bn fund that channelled money into Bernard Madoff's alleged $50bn Ponzi scheme.The Swiss bank used an agreement that denied it was responsible for the assets - even though its marketing documents claimed it would be.
The Swiss bank is highly likely to evade responsibility, frankly. Unlike the sympathetic juries likely to adjudicate any conflict in the United States, the European process is far more likely to ignore the "fluff" of the marketing documents in favor of the legalese. UBS, likely, knows this. Knew this.
Subscription documents for the Luxalpha Sicav explicitly remove UBS's liability if the fund's assets are lost. Under European rules, custodians such as UBS must take responsibility for "safekeeping" of a regulated mutual fund's assets. But the Luxalpha subscription form states that UBS "is not the safekeeping agent of the assets of the fund as the assets are safekept by the US registered broker-dealer".
UBS seeks to deny duty over Madoff funds [The Financial Times]






Posted by European Bear , Dec 22, 2008 2:58PM
I wouldn't be so sure that UBS can avoid this one. In my opinion, what's in the prospectus overrules any other documents, at least in the EU countries. It appears that the Luxembourg regulator has already come out confirming this.
Posted by guest , Dec 22, 2008 3:03PM
I bet new UBS clients are lining up to invest their whole fortune with them as we speak. /sarcasm
Posted by NotNasser , Dec 22, 2008 3:48PM
From your headline I thought you were going to tell us that someone tried the old throw-the-shoe routine on a Swiss govt official.
I think the outgoing US chief executive proved he can "duck" pretty well, and I wonder if the analogs in other countries would be as adroit?
Posted by guest , Dec 22, 2008 4:28PM
The prospectus isn't legally binding though, is it? I bet they'll make their clients happy in the end anyway, just to avoid the bad publicity.
Posted by guest , Dec 22, 2008 6:03PM
"Unlike the sympathetic juries likely to adjudicate any conflict in the United States..."
I don't think there has ever been a major case involving securities marketing materials in the US that has gone before a jury.