Nick Maounis: 'What would you say if I told you I could get your money to you in a timely fashion if you'd agree not to sue me? Is that something you'd be interested in?'
Pretty exciting proposal today from a “group of Amaranth investors” offering those who lost money in the Brian Hunter-led debacle of ’06:
1. Don’t sue us and we'll get you your money faster OR
2. Don’t agree not to sue us and we'll take a portion of the money you are owed and use it defending ourselves.
Amaranth tests the lawsuit waters [CNN Money]
Comments
Second thoughts about being so inflamatory, huh?
Posted by: Anonymouse | March 26, 2007 12:03 PM
Not too sure how that is legal. Seems like a breach of fiduciary duty. Although it would probably take an army of lawyers to get through the paperwork to figure out whether or not they could do it. By then, they are right, nothing would be left. MAybe this will be a new trend. Sort of like a incontestability clause in a will. Just take what we give you because if you sue you will get nothing.
Posted by: GeorgeNYC | March 26, 2007 01:12 PM
Im torn a bit between Amaranth's blatant lying "Amaranth would be diversified and risk controlled", which is the reason California's pension fund is suing, and customers greed which drove them to invest in the hedge fund in the first place.
You can't ferret out all liars and cheats beforehand. But you can certainly take great care and use money management skills when making such risky investments.
Posted by: Mike London III | July 22, 2007 08:31 PM