Regulators seem to believe that lawyers and their law firms act like ostriches when it comes to their clients and Ponzi schemes.
The Fairness of Tracing: Ontario Court of Appeal Considers Methods of Distributing Remaining Funds to Victims of a Ponzi Scheme
In Boughner v. Greyhawk, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered different methods for determining how to fairly distribute comingled funds remaining from a collapsed Ponzi scheme.
The US District Court for the District of Colorado considered several motions to dismiss a class-action suit filed by plaintiff Touchtone Group, LLC to recover damages resulting from a Ponzi scheme devised by Mantria Corporation.
Claim for Aiding and Abetting Fraud Stands, Others Dismissed Against Investment Management Company Involved in Ponzi Scheme: Winick V Van Zandt
In an August 2, 2012 decision by Justice Bucaria, the court granted in part and denied in part the moving defendants’, IRA Services, Inc. and Ira Services Trust Company (the “IRA Defendants”) motion to dismiss.
This afternoon, Judge David Hittner sentenced R. Allen Stanford to 110 years in prison for his decades-long Ponzi scheme that bilked investors of over $7 billion. The court also imposed a personal money judgment of $5.9 billion. The sentence was less than half of what the Government requested, but given that Mr. Stanford is already 62, today’s sentence means that he is destined to spend the rest of his life in prison.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently addressed the question of when a defendant can withdraw an invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to refrain from making self-incriminating statements. Defendant Brian Smart was a fund manager accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of operating a Ponzi scheme. During the SEC’s initial investigation and again later in the litigation discovery process, Smart invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer the SEC’s questions.
Ohio Supreme Court Vacates Lower Court Decision Which Limited the Ability of the Director of the Ohio Department of Commerce to Recover Proceeds from a Ponzi Scheme
In a per curiam Opinion issued this morning, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the beneficiaries of life insurance policies purchased by Roy Dillabaugh, who operated a Ponzi scheme, did not have standing to appeal a trial court’s order which ruled that that the Director of the Ohio Department of Commerce (“the Director”) was entitled to seek recovery of the insurance premiums paid for life insurance policies, but not the entire amount paid out under the policy.
Continuing to demonstrate New York’s public policy enforcing settlement agreements and the finality they bring to bear on divorce litigation, the Court of Appeals on April 3, 2012 held that the post-agreement discovery that the fact that a marital account had been invested with Bernard Madoff and retained by the husband upon the divorce was not a sufficient basis to set aside that agreement when the Madoff scheme later surfaced.
The Simkin v. Blank case in New York has been a frequent topic on this blog. It was game over for Mr. Simkin today when the NY Court of Appeals ruled that this Madoff victim could not revise his divorce deal. We first wrote when the case was filed. In this case, in June 2006, the parties agreed to evenly split the $5.4 million in an account they had with Madoff Securities.