David Fowler Johnson, in his Texas Fiduciary Litigator Blog, has made available for download his article, “Federal Court Denies Defendant Banks’ Motion For Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs’ Knowing Participation In Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim In Stanford Ponzi Scheme Case”. The article beings as follows:
In Rotstain v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank, plaintiffs sued banks for assisting Stanford and his entities regarding a Ponzi scheme. No. 3:09-CV-2384-N, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10332 (N.D. Tex. January 20, 2022). Stanford and the entities under his control sold fraudulent certificates of deposit (“CDs”) issued by the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Limited (“SIBL”). The CDs paid relatively high rates of interest, but SIBL claimed it deployed the funds raised from CD sales only in low risk, high return funds. In reality, the CD proceeds were used to finance Stanford’s own extravagant lifestyle, and to pay off previous investors. In this suit, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant financial institutions provided banking services that supported and furthered Stanford’s scheme. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on multiple claims, including knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty.
To see the full article, click: “Federal Court Denies Defendant Banks’ Motion For Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs’ Knowing Participation In Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim In Stanford Ponzi Scheme Case”.
Posted by Jessica Ji, Associate Editor, Wealth Strategies Journal.