Now here's a thing.

Someone, lets call him A, invested some hardwon capital in a fund, which seemed very securely administered, and which further seemed very astutely invested. Now it has become evident that the fund, at a time in the past, had some exposure to the Bernie Madoff operation. But unlike recent participants, A's fund actually showed a gain on the exposure to Madoff.

BUT - other investors, like B for example, now feel that having lost in the Madoff story, they want to go after A's fund - after all, why should A, whether knowing or unknowing, gain from the proceeds of what has been judged in court to be crime?

So B, and various others, enlist lawyers (perhaps on contingent fees) to go after the likes of A's fund. This may take time, and may cost plenty, but it is happening as we speak.

A's fund promptly makes a provision for legal fees, and starts a part-freeze on withdrawals. It says if people try to withdraw R100, it now assumes the right to pay out only R70, and to keep R30 for the "unlikely" outcome that they may have to surrender the Madoff gains. (And the fund people continue to take fees on the money in the fund.) They point out that the prospects for success by B and his cronies must be low - after all, people who tried to take on the sellers of pre-crash Enron shares were rebuffed since "that might have jeopardised the entire stockmarket". And a successful reclaim of these Madoff gains might "jeopardise the hedge fund industry".

So - what do you feel, think, and expect?

Before writing this matter off as a foible of American courts, please understand that we have our very own Tannenbaums, Fidentias, and more very close to home.

Cheers

Stuart