Kirk Wirght Found in Miami
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the FBI arrested Kirk S. Wright, the missing hedge fund manager who allegedly "misplaced" $100 million of his clients money. Very little of the money has been recovered, around $200,000. According the article, "Mr. Wright's arrest may offer some optimism to former clients. "The hope is that Mr. Wright will now lead us to the tens of millions of dollars that are still missing," said Timothy Mungovan, an attorney with Nixon Peabody LLP in Boston who represents former investors in Mr. Wright's funds."
Now perhaps we might see an fight between the state receiver and the private investors looking for the missing loot. This should prove to be interesting.
Technorati Tags: nixon peabody llp, wall street journal, private investors, hedge fund manager, money, fbi, loot, optimism
Comments
Michael,
Where are you finding all the SEC documents for the Wright case? I am doing some research on this matter (I'm a law student), and I haven't been able to find where you get them.
If you could email me your source, I'd much appreciate it.
Thanks.
Posted by: Kyle | May 22, 2006 2:48 PM
Kyle;
All the public documents are on file with US District Court in Atlanta. Georgia. Create a Pacer account and you can access the system for a nominal charge, 8 cents a page.
Posted by: michael webster | May 22, 2006 3:34 PM
Do you have resources for the relationship between custodian institutions and investment funds? It seems that money deposited into a legitimate custodial account is then deposited into a "black hole" with no further accountability.
Posted by: L.A. | June 15, 2006 9:54 AM
The SEC passed a new rule governing the relation between investment advisors and custodial funds. Go to:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ia-2176.htm
I am still unclear as to the method by which Kirk Wright is alleged to have passed off phony customer accounts.
Posted by: michael webster | June 15, 2006 12:44 PM
With only a cursory observation, it seems that the custodian institution hands off funds to the fund manager and washes it's hands of any responsibility while mailing out statements with only the original investment, claiming ignorance of gains or losses. The fund manager then hides behind the "custodial" institution in order to not be accountable or subject to inspection. Am I close to getting this right?!
Posted by: L.A. | June 15, 2006 2:28 PM