Stanford Receiver Makes Another Attempt to Undo $88M Clawback Verdict
October 13, 2017, New York — The court-appointed receiver handling the Ponzi scheme of Stanford International Bank urged the court last month to reverse the jury’s verdict, holding that there was no justification for questioning the jury’s finding that Janvey cannot clawback the money from Magness Defendants. Previously, the Texas federal judge had refused to revive an $88 million clawback suit linked to the $7 billion Stanford Ponzi scheme. Janvey has now again filed a renewed motion for judgment, requesting the court judge to undo the jury verdict. In his renewed motion filed with the court on October 13, 2017, the receiver has alleged that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his fraudulent-transfer claim. The Receiver reasoned that the record reflects that the Magness Defendants made admissions in tax filings that conclusively establish they had actual notice of the fraudulent nature of the $88.2 million in transfers that they received from Stanford International Bank. Thus, the Magness Defendants should be estopped from contesting the notice of the fraudulent nature of the transfers because the evidence conclusively establishes their lack of good faith.
Janvey is represented by Brendan Day, Scott Powers and Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts LLP and Ben Krage of Krage & Janvey LLP. The Magness Defendants are represented by Mark J. Barrera and M. David Bryant Jr. of Dykema Cox Smith, and Rachel Mentz and Andrew Petrie of Ballard Spahr LLP. The case is Janvey v. GMAG LLC et al., case number 3:15-cv-00401, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Wells Fargo Faces $7M Clawback Suit From CRS Trustee
October 3, 2017, New York – Last month, the trustee for bankrupt human resources contractor…Read More
Bankrupt Lincoln Mill Seeks to Clawback $1.1M From its Vendors
Maine, August 8, 2017 – As a part of the bankruptcy process, the Lincoln Paper…Read More
Alabama Court Upholds “Remains Unpaid” Approach to Shield Preference Transfers While Applying Subsequent New Value Defense
Kaye v. Barber Milk, LLC (In re BFW Liquidation, LLC), Nos. 09-00634-TOM-11, 11-00062, 11-00071, 2016…Read More
Avoidance Provisions of the Bankruptcy Code under §547(b) Does Not Apply Extraterritorially
Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. (In re Ampal-Am. Isr. Corp.), 562 B.R. 601 (Bankr….Read More
Former Madoff Employee Andrew Cohen to Give Up $1.1M He Received During the Madoff Ponzi Scheme
February 27, 2017, New York — A New York federal judge ruled that a former…Read More