Accused Hedge Fund Manager's Lawyer Calls Galvin 'Unprofessional'

May 26 2008 | 1:04pm ET

A lawyer for the hedge fund manager accused by Massachusetts authorities of improperly marketing his fund is lashing out at his client’s tormentor.

Raymond Mansolillo, who represents Michael Regan, called Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth “unprofessional” and accused him of filing “premature” charges when he found out Regan had approached federal prosecutors in New York.

“It was completely unprofessional” Mansolillo said of Galvin’s highly-publicized charges, which were designed to “ignite the emotions of investors.”

Galvin’s securities division alleges that Regan’s Natick, Mass.-based River Stream Fund failed to adequately determine whether his roughly 60 clients were wealthy enough to invest in hedge funds. It also said that Regan was neither a registered investment adviser nor adviser representative, and that River Stream was also not registered. But the regulator also found more than a hint of other improprieties that may indicate that investors won’t be seeing their money again.

Mansolillo said his client is under investigation both by federal prosecutors and regulators in New York, but that Regan was the one who approached authorities and insisted on notifying his clients, the Boston Herald reports.

For his part, Galvin dismissed Mansolillo’s comments are complaints “from a client’s attorney.”

RELATED STORIES

Mass. Charges Hedge Fund Manager For Solicitations 


In Depth

Q&A: MackeyRMS's Chris Mackey On A High Tech Fix To Broker Votes

Jun 23 2017 | 8:17pm ET

The looming implementation of the EU’s MiFID II rules regarding research has put...

Lifestyle

CFA Institute To Add Computer Science To Exam Curriculum

May 24 2017 | 9:25pm ET

Starting in 2019, financial industry executives sitting for the coveted Chartered...

Guest Contributor

Steinbrugge: Asia-Focused Hedge Funds Offer Great Opportunities

Jun 23 2017 | 3:33pm ET

Emerging market strategies have outperformed their developed-market peers for five...

 
Error

From the current issue of