Claim for Aiding and Abetting Fraud Stands, Others Dismissed Against Investment Management Company Involved in Ponzi Scheme: Winick V Van Zandt

By | NY Commercial Case Compendium | September 11, 2012
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. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Stanford Sentenced to 110 Years in Prison for His Role in Ponzi Scheme

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. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Attempt to Withdraw Fifth Amendment Invocation

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. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

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

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. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Husband Keeping Madoff Account in Divorce is Not Basis to Change Pre-Collapse Settlement Agreement

By | Divorce: New York | April 4, 2012
Husband Keeping Madoff Account in Divorce is Not Basis to Change Pre-Collapse Settlement Agreement 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. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus