U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission


Litigation Release No. 20993A / April 8, 2009

SEC v. Lydia Capital, LLC et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 07-CV-10712-RGS

Court Enters Final Judgment Against Massachusetts Hedge Fund Manager in Fraud Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that the Massachusetts federal district court entered a Final Judgment on April 8, 2009 against defendant Glenn Manterfield, a citizen of the United Kingdom, in connection with a civil injunctive action filed in April 2007 by the Commission against Manterfield, his business partner, and Lydia Capital, LLC, a registered investment adviser based in Boston, Massachusetts. The Final Judgment enjoined Manterfield, a principal of Lydia, from engaging in future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and holds him liable for $2,350,000 in disgorgement of profits from the conduct alleged in the Commission's complaint, plus prejudgment interest of $425,998, and a civil penalty in the amount of $130,000.

The Commission originally filed its action against Manterfield on April 12, 2007 in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts and filed an Amended Complaint on May 1, 2007. The Amended Complaint alleged that from June 2006 through April 2007, Manterfield and his business partner, Evan K. Andersen, acting through Lydia, engaged in a scheme to defraud more than 60 investors, who invested approximately $34 million in Lydia Capital Alternative Investment Fund LP, a hedge fund managed by Lydia. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants told investors that they intended to use the hedge fund's assets to acquire a portfolio of life insurance polices in the life settlement market. According to the Amended Complaint, Manterfield, Andersen, and Lydia made a series of material misrepresentations and omissions, including: (1) materially overstating, and in some instances completely fabricating the hedge fund's performance; (2) inventing business partners, offices, and investors in an attempt to legitimatize the firm and concealing the truth as to why key vendors and banks ceased relationships with the defendants; (3) lying about Manterfield's significant criminal history, and failing to disclose a February 2007 criminal asset freeze against him in England; (4) lying about how the hedge fund planned to address certain material risks and failing to disclose others; and (5) misstating the nature of the hedge fund's assets and its investment process. In addition, the Amended Complaint alleges that Manterfield and Andersen took millions of dollars of investors' funds by withdrawing investor monies to which they were not entitled.

On April 12, 2007, the U.S. District Court issued a temporary restraining order that, among other things, froze the three defendants' assets. On May 3, 2007, the Court issued a consented-to preliminary injunction and ordered a continuation of an asset freeze of the defendants' assets.

In a related action in the United Kingdom, on February 29, 2008, the Commission filed a limited notice application with the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division seeking an emergency order freezing approximately $1 million in assets held by Manterfield in the United Kingdom. The Commission filed the application after learning that a separate freeze order previously obtained by British authorities against Manterfield's assets might be lifted. After a hearing on the Commission's application on February 29, 2008, the High Court of Justice issued an order freezing the assets until March 6, 2008. Manterfield consented to continue the freeze until the court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the freeze should be extended. An evidentiary hearing was held in the High Court of Justice on April 30, 2008 and May 1, 2008. On May 16, 2008, the High Court of Justice issued an order continuing the freeze of Manterfield's assets until the resolution of the Commission's pending enforcement action in the United States. Manterfield appealed the order to the Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal. On November 26, 2008, the Court of Appeal held a hearing and, on January 28, 2009, the three-judge panel unanimously dismissed Manterfield's appeal.

The Final Judgment entered against Manterfield by the Massachusetts federal district court permanently enjoined Manterfield from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Final Judgment further holds Manterfield liable for $2,350,000 in disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest of $425,998, and a civil penalty in the amount of $130,000. Andersen has settled the Commission's action against him, and the action is still pending against Lydia.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Services Authority of the United Kingdom and the Securities Division of the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which also filed an action against the parties on April 13, 2007.

For more information, please see Litigation Release Nos. 20102 (May 3, 2007), 20585 (May 19, 2008), 20723 (September 17, 2008) and 20872 (January 28, 2009).



Modified: 04/08/2009