Thursday, February 28, 2013

February 2013 Ponzi Scheme Roundup

Posted by Kathy Bazoian Phelps

   The year continues its strong start for Ponzi scheme news. Here is the summary of the stories that were reported this month. Please feel free to post comments about these or other Ponzi schemes that I may have missed. And please remember that I am just relaying what’s in the news, not writing or verifying it.

   Matthew James Addy, 34, of Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a $3 million Ponzi scheme that involved the fake purchase and resale of wholesale jewelry and loose precious stones. Addy owned Edward J. & Company, which operated a retail jewelry store called La Porte Jewelers. Addy lured in 40 investors, many of them from religious groups with which he was affiliated, but never conducted the promised wholesale jewelry transactions.

   James W. "Bill" Bailey, Jr., 65, was sentenced to 32 years in prison in connection with his Ponzi scheme run through Southern Financial Services, which defrauded investors of more than $13 million. He dealt in asset management, individual retirement accounts, and wills and trusts, and he previously pleaded guilty to charges relating to his scheme.

   Darren Berg has asked the court to vacate his prison sentence in connection with the $140 million Ponzi scheme run through the Meridian Funds. Berg alleged that the trustee who administered Berg’s personal bankruptcy case "engaged in a conspiracy to elicit incriminating statements" from Berg when Berg’ attorneys were not present. Berg also argued that his attorneys provided an inadequate defense. Berg had previously pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 18 years in prison, and apologized to his victims at his sentencing, stating that "I did it consciously."

   Brian Anthony Bjork, 43, of Missouri, was charged in connection with a $1 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded approximately a dozen investors. Bjork had been employed as a registered investment advisor in J. David Financial Group and Select Asset Management, companies owned by deceased investment advisor Joel David Salinas. It is alleged that Bjork’s investment scheme was to solicit funds under the false pretense that he would either invest those funds in Salinas’ pawn shops or use those funds to purchase corporate bonds being offered by Salinas. Bjork had established a bank account over which he had sole signing authority in the name of Brian A. Bjork dba J David Financial Group.

   Julius Blackwelder, 59, of North Dakota, pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a $400,000 Ponzi scheme. Blackwelder is a former Mormon bishop whose victims included members of his congregation. He advised investors that he would invest the funds in safe, long-term commodities futures contracts. Instead, he used money to pay earlier investors, to build a waterfront home, and to repay personal bank loans.

   Karen P. Bowie, 61, of Texas, was sentenced to 80 years in prison for operating a Ponzi scheme through Titan Wealth Management LLC in which she sold fictitious high yield "European Mid-Term Notes" that she represented were issued by European banks. The scheme involved at least $4.7 million taken from investors, some of which was used by Bowie to purchase a coastal home in Maine. Thomas Lester Irby II was the owner of Titan Wealth, and he promised investors short-term returns of between 10% and 50%. Irby had told investors that their notes were protected by a $10 million note he owned that could be liquidated to pay them back. Irby was previously sentenced to 24 years in prison.

   Gerard Frank Cellette, 48, already serving an 8 year sentence in Minnesota for a $200 million Ponzi scheme, was charged in Orange County for losses of more than $21 million that took place in California. Cellette, through his company Minnesota Print Services, Inc., promised investors returns of 10% to 15% based upon false claims that he had large printing contracts with major corporations. Cellette never actually set foot in California. The scam also affected investors in Minnesota, Hawaii, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Illinois. He is accused of using the ill-gotten gains to buy cars, private jets and multiple homes with features such as a go-kart track, bowling alley, and a 1950s malt shop.

   Fred David Clark, Jr., 54, David Schwartz, Cristal Coleman, 39, Barry Graham, and Ricky Lynn, all former real estate executives with Cay Clubs Resorts and Marinas, were sued by the SEC for allegedly running a $300 million Ponzi scheme in which almost 1,400 investors were defrauded. The SEC alleged that investors were promised guaranteed returns of 15% and future income through the Cay Clubs rental program. Clark has also been identified as having interests in CMZ Group, Ltd., a Cayman Islands entity that has ventures including CashWiz pawn shops, and Argentum Refineries, a precious metals processor and bullion storage operation in Cayman Enterprise City. CMZ Group also has a company called "Best4Less", a wholesale distribution company based in Turks and Caicos Islands that manufactures Pirates Choice rum.

   Kenneth Cobb, 46, who formerly served 78 months in prison for a worldwide $64 million Ponzi scheme, was just sentenced to be jailed on weekends for 8 months and to pay $32,000 in restitution for his theft of 8 saguaro cacti from federal land.

   David Connolly, 51, of New Jersey, pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a real estate investment Ponzi scheme that defrauded 200 victims of more than $50 million. Connolly told investors that he would use their money to buy specific properties that would generate monthly rental income to be distributed to them. He also told them that their money would be held in escrow until the closing of their real estate transaction. The scheme collapsed when Connolly began defaulting on mortgage payments.

   Nicholas T. Cox, 35, was sentenced to 3 years and ordered to pay $1.98 million in restitution after pleading guilty to charges in connection with a $3.2 million Ponzi scheme that he ran through Integra Capital Management LLC. The scheme was to defraud commodities trading investors. Last year the CFTC had ordered Cox, along with Rodney W. Whitney, to pay millions in restitution and penalties and to refrain from engaging in any commodity-related activity. It was alleged that, instead of investing money from clients, Cox and Whitney used the money to pay other investors and for personal expenses, including dining, entertainment, travel and real-estate purchases.

   Christopher Brown Cornett and Heidi Beryl Beyer received sentences of 40 years and 6 years, respectively, in connection with a Ponzi scheme that involved more than 150 people and resulted in more than $10 million in losses. The scheme involved trading in foreign currency exchange markets. The investors’ money was lost in bad trades and gambling, to make payments to investors, and to purchase a new Chevrolet Corvette.

   Jonathan Davey, 47, stood trial and was convicted for his role in a $40 million Ponzi scheme that he ran through a hedge fund called Black Diamond Capital Solutions that defrauded about 400 victims in North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio. Davey served as "Administrator" for numerous hedge funds, and he solicited over $11 million from victims for his own hedge fund called "Divine Circulation Services." Davey used a shell company in Belize to funnel money to buy 47 acres of land in Ohio and to build himself a mansion. The Black Diamond scheme was masterminded by Keith Simmons and was sold as a Forex trading operation that promised risk-free annual returns exceeding 20%. Simmons appealed to investors' faith, quoting Bible verses and stressing his devout Christianity to portray himself as trustworthy. The following individuals have also been convicted in the Black Diamond scheme:
  • Keith Franklin Simmons, 47, of North Carolina, was sentenced to 50 years in prison on May 23, 2012.
  • Bryan Keith Coats, 52, of North Carolina, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years in prison on November 16, 2012.
  • Deanna Ray Salazar, 55, of California pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 54 months in prison on May 23, 2012.
  • Jeffrey M. Muyres, 37, of North Carolina pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 23 months in prison on January 18, 2012.
  • Roy E. Scarboro, 48, of North Carolina, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 26 months in prison on May 4, 2011.
  • James D. Jordan, 49, of Texas, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison on June 29, 2011.
  • Stephen D. Lacy, 53, of South Carolina, pleaded and was sentenced to six months in prison on May 4, 2011.
  • Chad A. Sloat, 34, of Missouri, pleaded guilty and is currently awaiting sentenced.
  • Jeffrey M. Toft, 50, of Florida, pleaded and is currently awaiting sentencing.
  • Michael J. Murphy, 52, of Minnesota, pleaded and is currently awaiting sentencing.
   Garett "Denny" Denniston, 62, pleaded guilty to one charge in connection with his operation of a $2.5 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 50 victims. Denniston ran his scheme through ConsensusOne that supposedly specialized in mergers and acquisition. He told investors that their money was invested in ConsensuOne-owned companies and that their investments were risk-free. Instead, he spent their money for gifts to family members and spent a large portion on airfare, hotels, restaurants, country club memberships, golf and ski vacations, mortgage and rent payments, cable and telephone bills, furniture, home renovation costs and other personal expenses.

   Jim Ellis entered a guilty plea in connection with his Ponzi scheme in which he defrauded Wilton Manors residents out of millions of dollars. Ellis admitted to conspiring with George Elia to defraud investors. Elia is scheduled to go to trial in March. In Ellis’ case, the government filed a motion to restrict the defense’s right to peremptorily exclude gay jurors, which the government anticipated because so many of the victims were members of that community. The government argued that "sexual orientation should be treated like race, gender and ethnicity for purposes of voir dire" in the process of picking jurors.

   Alice H. Everett, a former adviser with ING Financial Services and Allstate Financial Services, was banned from holding a license in the state of Florida after she was charged with selling shares of a Ponzi scheme known as Paramount Group, to 8 clients and shares of Minnesota Investment Group, a company of which she was VP, to 3 clients. The Paramount Group Ponzi scheme took place in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands and was revealed in 2010. Everett was previously barred by FINRA from working in the securities industry.

   Rodney Wade Grubbs, 43, had pleaded guilty last year to charges relating to a Ponzi scheme and was just sentenced to spend 2 more years in prison. Grubbs is still serving 30 years of probation from his guilty plea in the scheme where he had told investors he would use their money to purchase hotel rooms and tickets to concerts and sporting events, including the Super Bowl, the Ryder Cup, the Masters Tournament and the Kentucky Derby. He had defrauded 3 investors out of more than $500,000.

   Charles Huggins, 66, and Anne Thomas, 68, were charged in connection with a $2.5 million Ponzi scheme run through JYork Industries Inc. and Urogo Inc., which promised high returns from gold and diamond mines in Sierre Leone and Liberia. They said that they would use the investors’ funds to mine gold and diamonds and then sell them at a profit in the U.S. The scheme was based in New York City, but also involved Christopher Butchko, 43, of California.

   Samuel B. Jacobs, a religious broadcaster, was sentenced to 12 years in prison following is conviction relating to a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors out of $787,000. Jacobs and his former business partner Christopher Rice were found guilty of running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded 80 to 100 investors.

   Howard G. Judah Jr., 82, and Gregory F. Jablonski, 62, were each sentenced to 10 years in prison for their role in a $30 million Ponzi scheme run through National Life Settlements LLC. They solicited money from both active and retired state employees and teachers and arranged to have their money rolled out of retirement funds and into National Life Settlements investments. However, Judah and Jablonski never acquired the necessary life insurance policies. Judah had been convicted three previous times and Jablonski had been the principal of a bankruptcy Internet network firm.

   Helmut Kiener, 53, was charged in Philadelphia in connection with a $311 million Ponzi scheme that he ran through hedge funds including K1 Global Limited, Oceanus, Mezzanine and K1 Invest. Kiener is already serving a 10 year sentence in Germany, as was reported in the January 2013 Ponzi Scheme Roundup. Kiener faces a maximum sentence of 200 years. An associate, John C. Tausche, 61, was also charged.

   James Stanley Koenig, 60, saw his trial begin in connection with a $250 million Ponzi scheme in which many elderly investors were defrauded. His former business partner, Gary Thomas Armitage, 62, pleaded no contest to charges in exchange for a 10 year sentence. Another former co-defendant, Jeffrey A. Guidi, entered into a plea agreement and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. It is alleged that Koenig and Armitage hid crucial information from investors, including that Koenig was convicted of felony mail fraud in the 1980s. Koenig’s trial is expected to last a few months.

   Jason Konior, 39, was arrested on charges in connection with a $2 million Ponzi scheme involving 3 hedge fund investors. Konior promised investors that he would match their investments in his fund, Absolute Fund LP, up to 9 times. The complaint alleged that Konior advertised that his fund provided trading leverage to new and emerging hedge funds and that he would put the money into brokerage accounts that investors could use to trade securities. Instead, Konior allegedly took the money to pay his own expenses and cover redemption requests from prior investors.

   George G. Levin and Frank J. Preve partially prevailed on a motion to dismiss claims brought against them by the SEC. The court dismissed most of the claims but allowed a portion of one claim to stand. Levin and Preve were accused by the SEC of assisting Scott Rothstein in his $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme by defrauding investors to raise funds to purchase purported legal settlements from Rothstein. The SEC alleged that Levin and Preve offered promissory notes in Levin’s company, Banyon 1030-32, LLC, to raise money for Rothstein’s scheme. It is alleged that they "profited from the amount which the settlement discounts they obtained from Rothstein exceeded the rate of return promised to investors."

   Gilbert Lopez, 70, the former chief accounting officer of Stanford Financial Group, and Mark Kuhtr, 40, the former controller, were each sentenced to 20 years following their convictions last November. It is reported that the evidence at trial demonstrated that the two defendants knew Stanford was misusing the bank's assets, helped him conceal this misuse, and helped him deceive customers into believing he had infused hundreds of millions of dollars into the bank during the 2008 financial crisis. Laura Pendergest-Holt, the former chief investment officer was previously sentenced to 3 years and James Davis, the former chief financial officer, was previously sentenced to 5 years.

   Syed Qaisar Madad, 66, pleaded guilty to charges in connection with his $49 million Ponzi scheme that he ran through Technology for Telecommunication and Multimedia Inc. Madad. Madad targeted the Pakistani-American community and pitched what he represented was a successful day trading investment model. Madad spent more than $15 million of investors’ money on personal expenses such as real estate, jewelry for his wife and daughters, cars, and cash disbursement to himself and family members. As part of his agreement, Madad has agreed to forfeit his mansion, a Mercedez-Benz, 68 pieces of jewelry, and silk and wool handmade oriental carpets, among other things.

   Timothy McGinn, 64, and David Smith, 67, of New York, were convicted in connection with a Ponzi-like scheme. The two investment brokers were found guilty of diverting more than $4 million of their clients’ funds to pay personal expenses and to pay their firm’s employees and preferred clients. Both defendants face the possibility of 30 year prison sentences.

   Istvan A. Merchentaler, aka Steven Merchentaler, 42, was arrested and charged with defrauding investors of more than $2 million in connection with his Ponzi scheme run through PhoneCard USA. Merchentaler represented that PhoneCard was a "premier distribution source" for prepaid phone cards and cell phones that had contracts with Walmart, 7-Eleven and BJ’s Wholesale Club.

   W. Mark Miller, 59, Brendan W. Coughlin, 46, and Henry D. Harrison, 47, all from Texas, pleaded guilty to charges in connection with the $400 million oil and gas investment Ponzi scheme run through Provident by Joseph Blimline, 35, and Paul R. Melbye, 47. Coughlin and Harrison founded and controlled Provident and provided false information about oil and gas projects.

   Shawn H. Moore was found guilty of charges in connection with his role in operating the VesCor Capital real estate development Ponzi scheme. The $180 million scheme offered investments in real estate projects but was run as Ponzi scheme from inception with money from new investors going to pay previous investors in order to make the business appear profitable. Moore managed investor relations for VesCor, but failed to disclose the poor financial condition of the company when selling investments. VesCor Capital owner Val Southwick pleaded guilty in 2008 and was sentenced to 1 to 15 years in prison on each of 9 counts, with the sentences to run consecutively.

   Nicholas Mussolini, the CEO of Preston Waters, was arrested in connection with allegations that he was running a Ponzi scheme in which he promised high returns in connection with film financing. Preston Waters took in funds for purposes of supposedly financing 10 to 15 projects a year in the $20 million to $60 million budget range. Mussolini is facing up to 30 years in prison as well as a $ 1 million fine.

   Gurudeo "Buddy" Persaud, 47, had his federal indictment unsealed. Persaud is accused of running a $1 million Ponzi scheme through his private equity fund, White Elephant Trading Co., in which he based his trading model on lunar cycles and the gravitational pull of the moon and Earth. Persaud guaranteed returns of 6% to 18%.

   James Pantazelos, 64, was sentenced to 9 years after pleading guilty to charges in connection with his Ponzi-like scheme run through Destiny Partners, Inc. Investors were invited to conferences where they were promised returns of up to 200% and were guaranteed the return of their principal investment. Investors were told that their funds were invested in "Private Investment Trading Platforms," which traded bank notes in foreign markets, and that a substantial portion of profits generated would be donated to charitable and humanitarian causes.

   Richard Reynolds, 51, was denied his request for a reduction of his bail from $10 million to $100,000. Reynolds, who is accused of using church leaders to lure in more than $5 million of investor funds, argued that the reduction would allow him to pursue a proper defense outside of a jail cell. The court denied the request, concluding that Reynolds is a flight risk and that his medical concerns and need for adequate resources to work on his defense can be addressed in jail.

   Kimberly Rothstein, 38, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge that she tried to conceal and sell more than $1 million of jewelry that was the proceeds of the Ponzi scheme run by her husband, Scott Rothstein. She faces a maximum of five years in prison, as do her two co-defendants Stacie Weisman, 49, and Scott Saidel, 45 (who was Kimberly’s lawyer), who have also pleaded guilty. Kim Rothstein and the others hid dozens of pieces of jewelry, including a 12-carat yellow diamond ring, gold bars, 10 luxury watches and an 18-diamond wedding band, and then attempted to sell them. Prosecutors say that they also tried to get Scott Rothstein to testify falsely in various civil cases about where the missing jewelry was located.

   Steven Steiner, 61, and Henry Fecker III, 59, await their fate as a jury deliberates the outcome of their criminal trial relating to allegations that they laundered millions of dollars in the Mutual Benefits Corp. Ponzi scheme. Mutual Benefits had sold $1.25 billion of life insurance policies held by people dying of AIDS, and investors lost $830 million in the scheme. Mutual Benefits was shut down in 2004, and a receiver administered the case. Separately, Steiner is awaiting another trial on charges accusing him and Joel Steinger of conspiring to defraud investors between 1994 and 2003. The president of Mutual Benefits, Peter Lombardi, previously pleaded guilty.

   David Tamman, former Nixon Peabody securities partner, was suspended from practicing law in California. Tamman was convicted on charges relating to the $20 million Ponzi scheme of Newpoint Financial Services Inc. run by John Farahi in Beverly Hills. The California State Bar automatically suspends any attorney convicted of "felonies involving moral turpitude." Tamman was found guilty on charges for backdating documents and lying about it during an SEC investigation. The Newpoint Financial scheme targeted the Iranian-American Jewish population in Los Angeles, who were told that their money would be used to purchase corporate bonds backed by the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Anthony Vassallo, 33, pleaded guilty to a fraud charge in connection with his Ponzi scheme run though Equity Investment Management and Trading Inc. Vassallo promised investors profits of up to 36% per year through a computerized stock trading system. More than 300 customers, most of which were Mormons, invested a total of $83.3 million in the scheme. Co-defendant Kenneth Kenitzer, 66, pleaded guilty earlier and is awaiting sentencing. Several investors had been confronted by four of Vassallo's associates at gunpoint who identified themselves as federal agents and demanded over $378,000. Michael David Sanders, along with three accomplices, was later charged with conspiracy, impersonating a federal agent, and attempted extortion. The four were sentenced Friday, and each receiving probation.

   Frank Elroy Vennes, Jr., 55, of Florida, the former partner of Thomas Petters who helped raise millions of dollars for the Ponzi scheme, pleaded guilty for his role in the fraud. Vennes was scheduled to stand trial with James Nathan Fry, 59, the hedge fund manager who helped Vennes raise funds. The trial of Fry has been pushed back to an undetermined date. Vennes and Fry allegedly misled investors about the nature of their investments, failed to disclose Vennes' criminal, and did not report delays in interest payments as the scheme started to collapse in 2007. According to government calculations, Vennes and his company, Metro Gem, made more than $100 million in commissions over 15 years, and Fry collected $42 million over 10 years.

   Rodney Wagner, Roger Wagner and GID Group, Inc., all from Texas, were the subject of a CFTC order requiring them to pay $1.37 million in restitution to defrauded customers and a civil monetary penalty of about $1.05 million. The consent order finds that the defendants took at least $5.5 million from about 99 customers, that the Wagner brothers had represented that they were successful Forex traders who generated 6% returns per day, and that they promised that they could return principal plus 200% returns. The order also finds that the representations were false, that the defendants sustained consistent net trading losses, and that some of the stolen funds were used to pay their personal expenses and other pool participants’ purported returns.

   Michael Winans, Jr., 30, was sentenced to 13 years in prison in connection with his $8 million Ponzi scheme in which he promised nearly 1,200 victims they would receive 100% returns. He was the operator of the Winans Foundation Trust, which represented that it invested in crude oil bonds in Saudi Arabia. Winnans had pleaded guilty and was order to pay almost $4.8 million in restitution.

INTERNATIONAL PONZI SCHEME NEWS

Australia
   Wickham Securities was liquidated at a meeting for creditors. Wickham had raised funds from investors, many of which were retired and elderly, and then lent that money for property development, promising returns of up to 30%. Many people had invested in Wickham through Sherwin Financial Planners who provided investment advice. Sherwin has now also collapsed.

   David and Jacqueline Hobbs received the largest fine in the history of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. They received a $500,000 fine in connection with their global Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of more than $55 million. The scheme targeted more than 500 Australians and placed their money in 14 unlicensed funds, all located offshore in the Bahamas, Vanuatu and Hong Kong, among others. The court found that Mr. Hobbs’s conduct reflected a disregard for the interest of investors and found Mr. Hobbs "deliberately sought to put in place and have implemented a structure that was intended to avoid regulatory supervision (and hence would deprive investors of that safeguard)." A permanent ban has also been placed on Mr. Hobbs from managing corporations, and a 6 year ban was placed on Ms. Hobbs.

   Brian Wood, Jimmy Truong and Con Koutsoukos all pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a scheme called Integrity Plus Fund, which was one of David Hobbs funds and which raised more than $30 million from about 270 investors.

Germany
   Frankfurt Public Prosecution sent out 1,200 police officers and 15 public prosecutors to arrest Jonas Koeller, 31, and Stephan Schaefer, 33, and other suspects, to search their houses and premises of companies run by them and to seize all their belongings including some hundred parcels of land. More than 100 million euros ($124 million) was frozen. According to Frankfurt Public Prosecution, Koeller and Schaefer used Frankfurt based S&K companies, including Deutsche S&K Sachwert AG, and others to offer investors investments into the German real estate market promising 12% returns. News reports indicate a very lavish lifestyle of Koeller and Schaefer including high-end sports cars. Frankfurt Public Prosecution has started investigations into the affairs of lawyers, notaries, appraisers who had long standing relations with Schaefer and Koeller as well. It is to be expected that insolvency proceedings on the assets of the S&K companies will be opened shortly.

Report by Bernd H. Klose, www.raklose.de
Member of FraudNet, www.icc-ccs.org/home/fraudnet

Jamaica
   David Smith, who ran a $220 million Ponzi scheme that cheated thousands of Caribbean nationals in Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos, has asked for an early release from his 6½ year sentence in Grand Turk on the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Smith’s victims are less concerned about his early release than they are about what the government will do to secure the return of the millions of dollars lost by the victims. A confiscation order had been entered in the amount of $20.9 million, and Smith has until October 24, 2013 to pay that amount, otherwise he will serve an additional 8 years in prison by default. However, even if he is released, he still faces another 30 year sentence in Florida.

Philippines
   Kris Aquino, the sister of President Benigno Aquino, denied investing P50 million in the Ponzi-type scheme of Aman Futures Group founded by Manuel Amalilio. An estimated 15,000 victims lost P12 billion in the scheme. Amalilio is also known as Mohammad Kamal Bin Sa’ad and was arrested with a fake passport under the name of Manuel Karingal. President Aquino said that he expects Amalilio to be brought back to the Philippines to face trial.

South Africa
   The Financial Planning Institute, a South African organization for financial planners, is investigating whether any of its members breached that organization’s code of ethics in advising their client to invest in Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF). RVAF was a $245 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded 3,000 investors. The scheme was run by Herman Pretorius, who subsequently shot his partner, Julian Williams, and then committed suicide.

United Kingdom
   Jeremy Stone, the former manager of hedge fund Marble Bar Asset Management, lost his claims of negligence against NatWest and its employee Paul Amlin. Stone alleged that they failed to spot fraudulent activity of Saunders Electrical Wholesalers, which was run by Jolan Saunders. Stone had invested £20 million in the scheme. The court ruled that ruled Aplin had good reason to believe Saunders was running a legitimate business and "did not shut his eyes to the truth."

NEWSWORTHY LEGAL ISSUES IN PENDING PONZI SCHEME CASES

   Two legislators in New Hampshire are co-sponsoring a bill that would create a fund to pay restitution to victims of the state’s largest Ponzi scheme that was run by Financial Resources Mortgage Company. The bill would designate a percentage of fines collected by the Bureau of Securities Regulation, as well as the state Banking and Insurance departments, for the victims of FRM. FRM principal Scott Farah is serving a 15 year sentence, and co-defendant Donald Dodge was sentenced to 6½ years.

   Investor Denise Russelot filed a lawsuit against Focus Group Advisors, LLC, Larry Dearman, Marya Gray, Homer Fitzgerald, Jon Nettles, Daniel Wise, The Property Shoppe, Inc. and Bartnet, LLC in connection with her losses in what she alleges was a massive Ponzi scheme. Russelot alleged that Gray ran he scheme using various shell and alter ego companies, and that Gray convinced Dearman to use his Focus Group clients to fund the scheme.

   Daniel Stermer, the administrator over the state court proceeding for Global Bullion Exchange, filed a lawsuit against Wachovia Bank, which has been purchased by Wells Fargo Bank, alleging that the bank had failed to detect the fraud and failed to monitor the accounts.

   The trustee in the Bernard Madoff case, filed a motion seeking court approval to return another $505 million to victims of the Ponzi scheme. If the amount is approved, the total amount returned to victims would be $5.438 billion.

   The Second Circuit held that victims who lost money by investing in feeder funds are not entitled to recover for their losses in the same manner that direct victims of the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. The court determined that "indirect" investors are not customers who can recover from the bankruptcy estate.

   In a separate opinion from the Second Circuit, investors were not permitted to pursue claims against Madoff’s brother, Peter, as well as Madoff’s son Andrew and the estate of his late son, Mark. The court said that allowing such claims to proceed would impede the trustee’s effort to maximize payouts from the estate.

   Bernie Madoff sent an email from prison, stating that his bank, JP Morgan, knew about the Ponzi scheme. Madoff also says that the feeder funds were involved and that the recipients of the monies paid to the feeder funds should be recovered by the Madoff trustee.

   The Department of Labor reached a more than $43 million settlement with Austin Capital Management Ltd. and its general partner Austin Capital Management GP Corp. that will compensate thousands or workers and retirees whose savings and health plans were harmed in the Bernard Madoff scheme. The Department of Labor investigation found that Austin Capital violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by allowing funds to invest the assets of ERISA-covered plans with Madoff through investments in the Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund LP offered by Tremont Partners Inc, which was 100 percent invested with Madoff.

   The receiver for Management Solutions Inc. called off his proposed sale of property and advised the court that he would come up with another plan to liquidate the properties that are located in multiple states. A group of investors who had been opposing the bulk sale were pleased, believing that the properties will sell for more if marketed separately. The alleged Ponzi scheme was run by the owners of Management Solutions, Wendell Jacobson and Allen Jacobson, and it is alleged that the scheme took in about $200 million and defrauded 225 investors.

   Lincoln Financial Securities Corp. settled with FINRA over allegations of supervisory deficiencies in connection with the Kenneth Wayne McLeod Ponzi scheme run through F&S Asset Management Group and Federal Employee Benefits Group. FINRA noted several deficiencies, including that Lincoln Financial failed to place McLeod on heightened supervision, given that Lincoln Financial hired McLeod while a state securities regulator had an open investigation.

   Victims of Kenneth Wayne McLeod’s Ponzi scheme have filed suit against the United States for losses totaling $120.1 million. The 93 victims were active and retired government employees and law enforcement agents. The lawsuit seeks damages for the alleged negligence and wrongful acts of federal employees who endorsed McLeod to conduct retirement education and planning seminars for federal government and law enforcement employees. The victims allege that the U.S. failed to supervise McLeod to insure that the seminars did not provide specific financial investment advice, failed to properly vet and/or investigate McLeod and his company over a 20-year period and failed to adhere to the ethical rules that would have prevented the scheme. McLeod committed suicide in 2010.

   Bank of New York Mellon Corp. agreed to pay $114 million to settle investor claims in connection with the Medical Capital Holding Inc. Ponzi scheme. The settlement will resolve claims for BNY Mellon’s alleged failure to review MedCap’s dealings before disbursing investor funds to the company. The stolen money from the $1 billion Ponzi scheme went to pay for things like the purchase of failing hospitals, financing of a money-losing film about a Mexican little league team, the purchase of a 100-foot party yacht that cost $4.5 million, and an investment of $5 million into a company called EMark that supposedly specialized in internet porn, if in fact the company actually existed.

   The trustee in the Scott Rothstein case announced in his final liquidation plan that he expects that "payouts may fully compensate creditors holding general unsecured claims for their losses." The significant recoveries in this case are due in part to a proposed settlement with TD Bank for a proposed $72.45 million, and the trustee’s proposal that investors that have already recovered from TD Bank be barred from sharing in the distribution scheme until the total claims paid out reach 95% of losses. The total filed claims are $461,078,446.36 but may be reduced to $141 million through objections. The trustee is holding approximately $79.2 million in cash, which, when added to the $72.45 million TD Bank settlement, would allow 100% payment of the estimated claim total of $141 million. The trustee is also pursuing numerous clawback lawsuits against net winner investors and is in a dispute with the U.S. government over approximately$50 million in forfeited funds.

   The Trustee for Nevin Shapiro’s company, Capitol Investments USA Inc., which ran a $390 million Ponzi scheme, continued to prosecute a complaint filed against Marc Levinson and Shook, Hardy & Bacon in which allegations were made that Levinson and the firm helped Shapiro and his company to stay afloat financially even after they became aware of securities violations. The suit alleges that they "tacitly agreed with Capitol’s proliferation of its Ponzi scheme and Shook, Hardy & Bacon failed to ever deter Capitol from its additional borrowings."

   The NCAA’s University of Miami investigation relating to Nevin Shapiro is now being investigated itself. An investigation has revealed that the NCAA broke its own rules by using the information provided by Shapiro and paying his lawyer for it, even through the NCAA’s lawyers had advised against it. It is also alleged that Shapiro gave improper money and gifts to players and coaches and 3 assistant coaches are now being questioned about giving false of misleading information to authorities. Nevin’s lawyer says that "Nevin is extremely remorseful. That’s why he agreed to cooperate."

   The receiver and creditors committee in the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme have sued Antigua, accusing it as serving as Stanford’s "blood brother" by providing the necessary assistance to allow the scheme to flourish. It is alleged that Antigua was a prime participant in the fraud, a co-conspirator, and the beneficiary of $90 million in loans from Stanford that were not repaid. A separate lawsuit was also filed against eight Caribbean banks. The lawsuits are seeking over $230 million in damages and punitive damages. A banking regulator, Leroy King, is facing criminal charges and has been accused of taking bribes from Stanford to falsify bank audits and to impede investigations by U.S. regulators.

   New documents were revealed in a lawsuit filed by victims in the Ephren Taylor Ponzi scheme against New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and Bishop Eddie Long of the Church that reflect that Bishop Long was warned about financial problems with Taylor before members of the congregation were convinced to invest more than $1 million in the scheme. An internal memo reflects that an unidentified caller informed Bishop Long’s assistant that he "did not want the church to be taken advantage of" and predicted that Taylor would "issue promissory notes to the congregation if allowed that gives him legal authorization to do what he wants and there will be no return on investment." Bishop Long reportedly introduced Taylor to the church members as "my friend, my brother, the great Ephren Taylor," but the Bishop did not himself invest with Taylor. The SEC says that Taylor and his company City Capital had raised about $11 million from churches across the country and that they issued promissory notes supposedly funding various small businesses and interests in "sweepstakes machines."

   The complaint filed by A.J. Feeley, Heather Mitts, Brent Celek and Kevin Curtis against Suntrust Bank Inc., Martin Kelly Capital Management LLC and William Crafton, for alleged misconduct relating to the Westmoore Management LLC Ponzi scheme, was sent to binding arbitration. The court concluded that the financial services agreements between the parties mandated a binding arbitration for the dispute. The plaintiffs are seeking to recoup their losses from the Ponzi scheme, alleging that the firms failed to vet the Crafton’s investment practices.

   The receiver of ZeekRewards filed a quarterly report in the case with over 1 million victims. The report reflects that the receiver is holding approximately $310 million, and that at least $295 million may have been transferred to about 80,000 net winners and subject to possible fraudulent transfer claims. The receiver has expressed his intent to pursue both domestic and foreign defendants.

   Also in the ZeekRewards proceeding, the judge overseeing the case refused to appoint a separate examiner, who was proposed by net winner investors to supervise the court-appointed receiver’s efforts. The court noted that it would be impossible for an examiner to represent the interests of both net winners and net losers and that it would result in a duplication of efforts being made by the receiver.



Banks Providing Payday Loans

It seems at least Wells Fargo is now offering payday loans, though they call theirs a "direct deposit advance." (See Wells Fargo FAQ).  A large number of states prohibiting payday loans and an even larger number opposed to any federal charter for payday lenders.  (see Center for Responsible Lending).  It seems that some lenders are turning to setting up shop on the Internet, states that allow these loans or even in foreign countries.  (see Major Banks Aid in Payday Loans, New York Times).  While there is plenty to dislike about this product, how its marketed, the price, etc., there are also complaints against major banks that have been permitting withdrawals on these loans, even where the loans are illegal in the first place. 

Customers should be able to discontinue automatic withdrawals of any variety by a simple request to the bank.  Banks that don't comply with customer requests do so that their own peril.  Notice of a stop payment would seem to make any further transactions not properly payable under section 4-401 and prohibited under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act at the very least. There are some reports that the banks truly are attempting to increase overdraft fees by forcing customers on the edge to continue making auto-withdrawlas over a stop payment request.  While I am not surprised that banks might overreach at times, customer persistence may help to stomp this out.  Or at least an industrious attorney or law student who is able to remind banks of the rules of Article 4 and Regulation E under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act 205.10 (allowing customers to stop payment).

-JSM

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Yet another entrustment case. Buyer wins.

It seems there with regularity appear cases that well illustrate the "entrustment" doctrine, often concerning artwork that falls into ownership by a buyer in the ordinary course.  UCC section 2-403 governs the rights of buyers in the ordinary course who receive the goods from a merchant dealing in goods of the kind, even where the merchant did not have authorization to sell from the actual owner of the goods.  Application of this section was at issue in the case of Joseph P.Carroll Ltd. v. Baker concerning ownership of the painting Untitled (1943)by John D. Graham (“the Painting”).  Craig Baker (“Baker”) purchased the Painting in a private sale, but later consigned the Painting with a third party gallery owned by Lawrence Salander (“SOG”) for sale.  In 2000, John P. Carroll Ltd. (“Carroll”) expressed an interest in the Painting but did not purchase it from SOG until 2007.  Four months after the sale, Baker discovered the sale and confronted SOG; however SOG had declared bankruptcy in the interim and, consequently, Baker was not paid for the painting.  Applying section 2-403, the court determined that Baker entrusted the painting to SOG, a merchant.  Because Carroll was a buyer in the ordinary course that purchased the Painting in good faith and without knowledge of the rights of Baker, SOG effectively transferred all of Baker’s rights to the painting to Carroll. Therefore, Carroll held title to the painting.  See also Lakes Gas Co. v. Clark Oil Trading Co., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1305–06 (D. Kan. 2012) (finding that summary judgment precluded where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Lakes effectively entrusted its propane to Stevenson to sell to third parties, as to whether Clark Oil comported with usual or customary practices in buying propane from Stevenson, and as to whether Clark Oil qualified as a buyer in the ordinary course within meaning of the section 2-403).

While indeed this is a harsh result to the former owner of the painting, the message is that those who entrust valuable objects to others should look into filing a Financing Statement in the proper office to protect the interest.

                                                                                                   -JSM
 

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Thanks to Frank Synder and Texas Wesleyan

I'd like to echo Meredith Miller's thanks over at Contracts Prof Blog and add my own to Professor Frank Synder and Texas Wesleyan School of Law for hosting the Eighth International Contracts Conference this past weekend.  I am pleased to announce that St. Thomas University School of Law will host next year's conference February 21-22, 2014 in lovely Miami.  So, save the dates for a great weekend of paper presentations and contract (and often commercial) law discourse.  We will start accepting paper and panel proposals in the coming months when the Call for Papers is announced.

More to come on this soon.

                                                                                                                                     -JSM

Revolving door of contract terms?



At the International Contracts Conference, there was plenty of references and discussion of companies changing terms and conditions whenever they see fit to do so (see AT&T litigation; Apple).  AT&T readily notes that it changes terms "from time to time.  as does Apple.   As another example, Facebooks' multiple terms and conditions changes have resulted (see, e.g.,  new instagram changes), like AT&T, more than a bit of grumbling from users. 

So, is there anything to be done about this?  Seems not.  A contract just isn't what it used to be in terms of mutual assent it appears.  Now we all agree to an agreement that allows unilateral modification.  I am hardly convinced that consumers actually agree to this, but the overreaching of sellers in is well documented.  Pete Seeger once said, “Education is when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get if you do not.” It seems now, it might not matter whether we read the fine print terms or not.  Hardly encouragement to read these darn provisions.

Other than suing the seller, consumer options seem limited.  When Facebook, Inc. made its debut as a publicly traded company, and changed its terms and conditions, some Facebook users attempted to creatively try to block resuse of profile content.  Basically, the users began posting status updates citing provisions from the Uniform Commercial Code in order to protect their content. The notice, in part, read:

By the present communiqué, I hereby notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents, and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1-308, 1-103, and the Rome Statute).

Commentators did not seriously believe that posting this notice on a Facebook page would have any legal impact on privacy. Moreover, the Uniform Commercial Code is not really implicated here.  It is hard to see how the UCC really helps, as much as I admire those who wield its provisions by section number.  The bottom line is that one cannot take back what they have already consented to, even if the consent is to an ever changing set of terms. Specifically, all users when opening their accounts agree to Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR). Contained within the SRR are the site’s privacy policy and its terms and policies. By opening their account and clicking the “sign up” button, all users have accepted these terms and stated they have read these policies. Therefore, one cannot alter their acceptance to these policies nor can they restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement by posting a contradictory legal notice on their page. 

While the Facebook user tactic has no teeth to it, it represents an ever present issue that consumers will face concerning terms and conditions, particularly those that companies can, and do, change frequently.  All without any additional consent. 
 
                                                                                                       - JSM and Raymond Alvarez

First NAFER Newsletter Discusses Receivers and the In Pari Delicto Doctrine

Posted by Kathy Bazoian Phelps

   The National Association of Federal Equity Receivers (NAFER) just published its first newsletter, called "The Receiver." It is available here.

   Be sure to check out my article, "Receivers and the In Pari Delicto Doctrine." Michael D. Napoli also has a great article on "Avoiding the Automatic Turnover of Assets Required by Section 543 of the Bankruptcy Code."

   If you're not already familiar with it, you may want to check out the organization at www.naferfoum.org. NAFER's upcoming conference in Chicago in September is anticipated to be a terrific networking and educational opportunity for those involved in equity receivership cases.

Monday, February 25, 2013

The High Price of Law School

Good news for law students?  There has been much in the news about the increasing student loans nationwide, the high cost of law school and the downturn in applications.  So, could there be some good news from the "taxman?"  Enter the LifetimeLearning Tax Credit (LLTC) available on tax returns for tax year 2012.  The credit, processed on IRS Form 8863, along with the American Opportunity Tax Credit, are targeted toward students.  The LLTC appears, unlike others, to apply to those obtaining graduate-level education.

So, what is the deal when your students come by to ask as mine did?  The Lifetime Learning Tax Credit consists of a maximum of $2,000 or 20% of the qualifying education expenses.  These expenses must be paid to any post-secondary education, including graduate schools, and they constitute tuition and fees, course-related books, supplies, and equipment that are required as a condition for enrollment.  Even a new laptop may qualify if documentation can be provided that the school requires it! Anyone who pays -even with borrowed funds- expenses for higher education (being undergraduate or graduate education), -either for him, a spouse, or a dependent- may claim the credit.  As always, there are income limitations, set at $61,000, or if filing jointly (which is required if married), $122,000. 

The expenses count for the year in which they are paid, not for the academic year for which they are paid.  For example, if tuition is paid in the Fall of 2012 for the Spring semester of 2013, it constitutes the expenses of 2012. Also, the expenses must be reduced by any amount paid for classes that a student withdraws, as well as for any tax-free educational assistance received such as some scholarships and fellowships.  For example, if $10,000 is paid in tuition, a $2,000 credit (10,000 x .20) may qualify, assuming no other education tax credit was claimed such as the American Opportunity Credit.  However, if the claimant was reimbursed for any of the previous reasons, or the student received a tax-free scholarship, the amount of expenses of $10,000 would be reduced and 20% calculated from it.

 So, when they come by and complain about the high cost of law school, books and the dearth of jobs, perhaps the bright spot might be a $2000 tax incentive.  Hmmm, be sure to mention it. 

                                                                                                                         - JSM and Rosario Torres

No Contract?

Professor  Oren Bar-Gill (NYU) has been busy of late!  Not only was he a presenter at the International Contracts Conference in Texas Wesleyan in Ft. Worth, Texas, this past weekend, and has a new book "Seduction by Contract: Law, Economics and Psychology in Consumer Markets," he has a new paper "No Contract?" on SSRN taking up the issue of no contract arrangements, where consumers opt-out of long term relationships with providers.  Yet another interesting paper in my stack to read.

                                                                                                                                     - JSM

Return on Equity or Interest on a Loan? It Doesn't Matter When a Ponzi Scheme Unravels


Posted by Kathy Bazoian Phelps

   In the consolidated bankruptcy proceeding of Frederick Darren Berg and the Meridian Funds, the trustee filed several fraudulent transfer actions. In one of them, against Jack W. Brown and Margaret A. Heftel, the trustee claimed that fictitious interest payments were constructive fraudulent transfers. Calvert v. Brown (In re Consolidated Meridian Funds), 2013 Bankr. LEXIS, 675 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Feb. 19, 2013). The defendants had made loans to the Meridian Funds in exchange for promissory notes promising interest between 9.5% and 12.5% per annum.

   Brown and Heftel filed a motion for summary judgment. The court had previously denied a different defendant’s motion for summary judgment, where, like here, the defendants had received back more than their initial investment and it was recovery of the profits that was at issue. Brown and Heftel argued a different twist on the analysis of whether the debtors received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for their interest payments.

   The court had previously ruled in Calvert v. Foster Radford that interest payments were not in "satisfaction of an antecedent debt within the meaning of either the state or federal fraudulent conveyance statutes, and therefore did not constitute reasonably equivalent value." Id. at *10. In their motion, Brown and Heftel contended that the court did not consider the argument that in analyzing the issue of reasonable equivalent value, a lender should be treated differently than an equity investor. "They argue that a debtor’s repayment of an equity investment would not qualify as satisfaction of an antecedent debt under the state UFTA, whereas the debtor's repayment of a loan with reasonable interest should qualify as satisfaction of an antecedent debt." Id. at *11.

   The court first analyzed the split of authority on whether reasonably equivalent value can ever be exchanged in connection with the payment of interest in a Ponzi scheme case. It noted that most courts find that "any return to a lender or investor in a Ponzi scheme in excess of the principal investment will not be treated as value, and therefore cannot be counted in determining whether the return was ‘reasonably equivalent.’" Id. at *14–15; see also, Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008), In re United Energy Corp., 944 F.2d 589, 596 (9th Cir. 1991). On the other hand, the court considered the few decisions that have held that "commercially reasonable interest on an enforceable promissory note should be treated as payment on an antecedent debt and therefore not be recoverable as a fraudulent conveyance." Id. at *13-14 (citing In re Unified Commercial Capital, Inc., 260 B.R. 343 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2001); In re Carrozzella & Richardson, 286 B.R. 480 (D. Conn. 2002).

   The court then accurately captured the struggle in trying to do equity in these circumstances:
There is no question that the courts have struggled with the differing facts in these cases, where the consequences of the scheme deprive some investors of their life savings and render other investors defendants in lawsuits where significant sums of money, long since paid to them, are subject to recapture. Acknowledging these harsh results, the Ninth Circuit adopted a rule intended to even out the results as between investors who get paid and those who do not. Investors who get paid are protected by the various statutes of limitation; they may keep those payments made to them outside the statute of limitations, but they must share the pain by giving up anything they received in excess of their investment within the applicable statute of limitations. The case law reflects that the courts are not in agreement as to how the pain should be shared in these unfortunate cases.Meridian at *16-17.

   The court then engaged in analysis of other cases cited by the defendants, distinguishing each of them on the following basis:
  • In re Image Masters, Inc., 421 B.R. 164 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009): Lending institutions had received payments on homeowner loans as part of the scheme, but the court found that none of the debtors had a direct relationship with the lenders. Rather, homeowners refinanced their homes directly with the lenders who took mortgages in the homes, and the homeowners then separately contracted with the debtors regarding wraparound mortgages on their homes. "The court concluded that because the debtors’ payments to the lenders reduced the debtors’ debt to the homeowners, the debtors received ‘value’ for those payments, and that because the reduction in the debt was dollar-for-dollar, it was also equivalent." Meridian at *21.
  • In re Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 309 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002): This case deals with the trustee’s claim to recover commissions paid to a former employee of the debtor. The "court followed In re Universal Clearing House Co., 60 B.R. 985 (D. Utah 1986), in concluding that the determination of ‘value’ should focus on the value of the goods and services provided rather than the impact the goods and services had on the bankrupt entity (i.e., deepening insolvency and furtherance of the Ponzi scheme)." Meridian at 21.
  • In re M&M Marketing, LLC, 2013 WL 152526 (Bankr. D. Neb. Jan. 15, 2013): The court noted that this court "cited Donell with approval, but noted that other courts, in the right circumstances, might find the repayment of interest equivalent value, citing Carrozzella. The facts in the case before the M&M court, however, did involve what the court thought was an excessively high rate of interest, 25% in 90 days." Meridian at *22.
   In the Meridian case, Brown and Heftel argued that they are not were not "investors in the equity sense" but rather were more like traditional lenders. Id. at *18-19. The court noted, however, that "The notes attached to the Brown Declaration and the Heftel Declaration, however, look more like investments than traditional loans" and set forth a few facts in this case which informed that conclusion. Id. at *19. The court found:
  • "The notes refer to disclosure packages and subscription agreements, which are normally associated with investments rather than commercial loans." Id.
  • "The complaints in these cases allege that the sole business of the Meridian Funds was to offer and sell promissory notes to investors and that investors were told that the sole purpose of the investment was to enable the Meridian Funds to invest on their behalf in seller-financed real estate contracts, hard money loans, real estate and mortgage-back securities." Id.
  • "Investors like Mr. Brown and Ms. Heftel were promised rates of return on their investments in the form of interest payments." Id.
   Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

   At least in the Ninth Circuit on this issue, the label doesn’t matter, and recipients of payments in a Ponzi scheme are more simply characterized as net losers or net winners. As the Meridian court noted: The Ninth Circuit "has not adopted a rule which treats victims of a Ponzi scheme differently depending upon whether their investment can be characterized as a financial investment, equity investment or loan." Id. at *19.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Promising "Reads" in Contract Law

The Eigth International Contracts Conference is now done, but a report on yesterday's panels is worth noting.  The presentations included a panel on Are Consumer "Contracts" Contracts? with Oren Bar-Gill (NYU), Jean Braucher (U Arizona), David Horton (UC-Davis) and Margaret Jane Radin (U Michigan) as presenters.  The focus of this discussion was Professor Radin's book "Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights, and the Rule of Law" (Available on Amazon for $30.40 and Kindle $19.25).  I haven't read it yet, but after hearing the panel, a number of those in the audience ordered it.  The Wall Street Journal did a book review for it and Professor Horton will post a review on SSRN soon.  The book gives a historical view of the dreaded boilerplate language for any who aren't already drawn in by the issues and then turns to a discussion concluding what many already know: there are serious defects with consent to boilerplate under classic contract doctrine.  Of course, restricting boilerplate has its problems as well in a society depending on speedy transactions that are not individually negotiated.

Another panel focused on Professor Bar-Gill's book "Seduction by Contract: Law, Economics and Psychology in Consumer Markets" (Available on Amazon for $32.50 and $19.24 on Kindle).  Professor Bar-Gill takes up specific instances of long-term consumer contracting (cell phones, mortgages, credit cards, etc.) and grapples with consumer short term philosophy toward their own prospects and the market that ultimately allows sellers to secure less favorable long-term deals.

I look forward to reading these soon.

                                                                                                                                     - JSM

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Greetings from the Eighth Annual International Contracts Conference

Two days of great discourse on contract law is being held at the Annual International Conference on Contracts, the schedule for the Eighth International Conference on Contracts, coming up this weekend, is available here.  Of note, yesterday's speakers included Neil Sobel's (Texas Wesleyan) presentation on Attacking Zombie Debts highlighted the perils of resurrected debt to consumers.  Fernando Dias Simoes' (University of Macao) presentation on Professionals v. Consumers: Should SME's be Treated at Laymen? argued that regulatory structures should include in some contexts small and medium business entities in consumer protection regimes.  I look forward to seeing both of these papers on SSRN soon.

Today's presentations include a panel on Are Consumer "Contracts" Contracts? with Oren Bar-Gill (NYU), Jean Braucher (U Arizona), David Horton (UC-Davis) and Margaret Jane Radin (U Michigan) as presenters.

If you are not here in Ft. Worth, you are missing some great talks.  The Conference's Lifetime Achievement Award went to Dr. John Murray.  Next year's Conference will take place on February 21-22, 2014 at St. Thomas University in Miami, Floida.  Hope you will join us!

                                                                                                                                           -JSM

SSRN Recently Submitted Papers in Journal of Consumer Law eJournal

RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days)
TOP 10 Papers for Journal of Consumer Law eJournal

December 24, 2012 to February 22, 2013

Rank Downloads Paper Title
1 498 Law School Marketing and Legal Ethics Ben Trachtenberg,
University of Missouri School of Law,
Date posted to database: December 21, 2012
Last Revised: January 4, 2013
2 380 Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2012: Twenty-Sixth Annual Survey Symeon C. Symeonides,
Willamette University - College of Law,
Date posted to database: January 13, 2013
Last Revised: January 14, 2013
3 276 Arbitration and Access to Justice: Economic Analysis Omri Ben-Shahar,
University of Chicago Law School,
Date posted to database: January 6, 2013
Last Revised: January 10, 2013
4 223 The Politics of Twitter Data Cornelius Puschmann, Jean Burgess,
Humboldt University of Berlin - School of Library and Information Science, Queensland University of Technology,
Date posted to database: January 25, 2013
Last Revised: January 25, 2013
5 178 Award as an Investment: The Value of an Arbitral Award or the Cost of Non-Enforcement Loukas A. Mistelis,
Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London,
Date posted to database: January 7, 2013
Last Revised: January 7, 2013
6 153 The Law of Friction William McGeveran,
University of Minnesota Law School,
Date posted to database: December 20, 2012
Last Revised: December 20, 2012
7 151 The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: An Introduction Adam J. Levitin,
Georgetown University - Law Center,
Date posted to database: January 12, 2013
Last Revised: February 5, 2013
8 141 The HOB-Vín Judgment: A Failed Attempt to Standardise the Visual Imagery, Packaging and Appeal of Alcohol Products Alberto Alemanno,
HEC Paris - Law Department,
Date posted to database: January 13, 2013
Last Revised: January 13, 2013
9 141 Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery Latanya Sweeney,
Harvard University,
Date posted to database: January 29, 2013
Last Revised: January 29, 2013
10 139 The Economics and Regulation of Network Branded Prepaid Cards Todd J. Zywicki,
George Mason University - School of Law, Faculty,
Date posted to database: January 23, 2013
Last Revised: January 23, 2013


- JSM