In a previous post, I examined the incestuous relationship between Paul Singerman and other Berger Singerman insiders and Gibraltar Bank (see also here). Berger Singerman is the lead law firm for the trustee in the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler bankruptcy. It has spearheaded the "immunization" of Gibraltar and those associated with Gibraltar, in the Gibraltar Bank scandal — a scandal that parallels the TD Bank scandal. The Gibraltar immunization extends to Berger Singerman itself, its insider co-investors with Rothstein in Gibraltar, and to others who aided in orchestrating the purchase of Gibraltar Bank ... the bank Scott Rothstein said was essential to carrying out his scheme.
Rothstein testified that a major reason for his participation in the purchase of Gibraltar Bank was that inquiries into his Gibraltar accounts would then be stopped. So the "carrot" to Rothstein joining with Berger Singerman insiders in the Gibraltar purchase was a cessation of inquiries into the Ponzi scheme; and the "stick" was continued inquiries at Gibraltar, which could result in the quick collapse of the Ponzi scheme. Not much of a choice.
In my March 9, 2012 post, I stated the following:
"Everyone following the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy case should recognize what is really happening:
Berger Singerman is making many quick "pennies on the dollar"
settlements. Those paltry settlements all have buried clauses that
immunize the targets from victim lawsuits — the real "carrot" to settle.
A large part of those paltry settlements then go to Berger Singerman
for legal fees — and Berger Singerman is thereby able to protect
themselves (and friends) from many embarrassing questions and potential
civil claims, including aiding and abetting and civil RICO claims,
regarding Gibraltar"
A few days ago, Civil RICO claims were permitted by U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard to be added to Emess Capital's complaint against TD Bank, thereby showing the viability of filing such claims against Gibraltar Bank and those connected to the Rothstein scheme — claims I pointed out were apropos in Gibraltar's case.
The still open issue is why haven't Civil RICO claims been used against Gibraltar Bank yet? Is it because Berger Singerman obtained immunization for Gibraltar and those connected to Gibraltar, thereby protecting themselves and their own multimillion dollar investments in Gibraltar? Civil RICO claims against Gibraltar, along with aiding and abetting claims, could enmesh Berger Singerman insiders as co-defendants based on allegations they played a crucial role in carrying out Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme.
Showing posts with label Judge Herbert Stettin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Herbert Stettin. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Scott Rothstein - TD Bank Wins One
TD Bank just won a victory before Judge Marra in federal district court. Judge Marra ruled TD Bank has the right to have a jury trial conducted in the district court, not the bankruptcy court, because it did not consent to a bankruptcy court jury trial.
The only question is if they want to go before a jury ... and I don't only mean TD Bank. The elephant in the room throughout the whole Scott Rothstein bankruptcy is that Berger Singerman insiders, including Paul Singerman, partnered with Rothstein to buy Gibraltar Bank, arguably a bank more important to Rothstein's schemes then TD Bank.
Clearly, Berger Singerman insiders are presumed to have inside knowledge of Rothstein's scheme — through due dilligence and similar efforts used in evaluating their Gibraltar investment and their partner, Rothstein, who they were investing with.
At the time of the purchase all the warning signs were in place, including the many internal complaints about Rothstein's accounts. Rothstein has already testified that the key reason for his investing in Gibraltar Bank was to block all internal investigations of his accounts.
The conflict problem — so the public was informed and it was dutifully reported — was "solved" by hiring another law firm to sue Gibraltar. The problem then disappeared from public view, as "solved."
But, the conflict problem was never solved because Gibraltar played a central role in the Ponzi scheme. Berger Singerman had retained such a degree of control over the bankruptcy estate that Paul Singerman negotiated the sweetheart Gibraltar bankruptcy settlement that immunizes Gibraltar from other claims by Rothstein's victims — and protects Berger Singerman insiders' investment in Gibraltar.
The ploy of hiring another firm to give the appearance of a "solved" conflict, worked very well indeed.
TD Bank's "Best Defense" - What Happened To The In Pari Delicto Defense ... It Worked In The Madoff Case?
It is so far very strange that the issue of "in pari delicto" has not yet hit any headlines in this case (See my previous post on this subject). Remember, that well settled defense theory says, in essence, that if two parties work together on a scheme, then one of those schemers (in this case the bankruptcy estate) cannot sue third parties on behalf of innocent victims.
To make the in pari delicto concept clearer: picture two muggers assaulting a victim. One of the muggers sues another alleged accomplice to the mugging to compensate the victim. The sued alleged accomplice raises the in pari delicto defense claiming an accomplice cannot sue him to compensate the victim.
This very important defense issue, a few days ago, became the subject of an appeal in the Second Circuit in the Bernie Madoff bankruptcy case. The appeal came after two Madoff bankruptcy trustee lawsuits against financial institutions were thrown out based on the in pari delicto defense. Those cases parallel the Scott Rothstein case against TD Bank.
Everyone following the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy case should recognize what is really happening:
Berger Singerman is making many quick "pennies on the dollar" settlements. Those paltry settlements all have buried clauses that immunize the targets from victim lawsuits — the real "carrot" to settle. A large part of those paltry settlements then go to Berger Singerman for legal fees — and Berger Singerman is thereby able to protect themselves (and friends) from many embarrassing questions and potential civil claims, including aiding and abetting and civil RICO claims, regarding Gibraltar.
The only question is if they want to go before a jury ... and I don't only mean TD Bank. The elephant in the room throughout the whole Scott Rothstein bankruptcy is that Berger Singerman insiders, including Paul Singerman, partnered with Rothstein to buy Gibraltar Bank, arguably a bank more important to Rothstein's schemes then TD Bank.
Clearly, Berger Singerman insiders are presumed to have inside knowledge of Rothstein's scheme — through due dilligence and similar efforts used in evaluating their Gibraltar investment and their partner, Rothstein, who they were investing with.
At the time of the purchase all the warning signs were in place, including the many internal complaints about Rothstein's accounts. Rothstein has already testified that the key reason for his investing in Gibraltar Bank was to block all internal investigations of his accounts.
The conflict problem — so the public was informed and it was dutifully reported — was "solved" by hiring another law firm to sue Gibraltar. The problem then disappeared from public view, as "solved."
But, the conflict problem was never solved because Gibraltar played a central role in the Ponzi scheme. Berger Singerman had retained such a degree of control over the bankruptcy estate that Paul Singerman negotiated the sweetheart Gibraltar bankruptcy settlement that immunizes Gibraltar from other claims by Rothstein's victims — and protects Berger Singerman insiders' investment in Gibraltar.
The ploy of hiring another firm to give the appearance of a "solved" conflict, worked very well indeed.
TD Bank's "Best Defense" - What Happened To The In Pari Delicto Defense ... It Worked In The Madoff Case?
It is so far very strange that the issue of "in pari delicto" has not yet hit any headlines in this case (See my previous post on this subject). Remember, that well settled defense theory says, in essence, that if two parties work together on a scheme, then one of those schemers (in this case the bankruptcy estate) cannot sue third parties on behalf of innocent victims.
To make the in pari delicto concept clearer: picture two muggers assaulting a victim. One of the muggers sues another alleged accomplice to the mugging to compensate the victim. The sued alleged accomplice raises the in pari delicto defense claiming an accomplice cannot sue him to compensate the victim.
This very important defense issue, a few days ago, became the subject of an appeal in the Second Circuit in the Bernie Madoff bankruptcy case. The appeal came after two Madoff bankruptcy trustee lawsuits against financial institutions were thrown out based on the in pari delicto defense. Those cases parallel the Scott Rothstein case against TD Bank.
Everyone following the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy case should recognize what is really happening:
Berger Singerman is making many quick "pennies on the dollar" settlements. Those paltry settlements all have buried clauses that immunize the targets from victim lawsuits — the real "carrot" to settle. A large part of those paltry settlements then go to Berger Singerman for legal fees — and Berger Singerman is thereby able to protect themselves (and friends) from many embarrassing questions and potential civil claims, including aiding and abetting and civil RICO claims, regarding Gibraltar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)