Search
Most Recent
AdSurfDaily Agape agent American Integrity Aronson asset sales Attorney av bar reg baker bank bank of america Bankruptcy baumann bermudez black diamond blackwell bridge loan bull cattle CD celebrity cftc charity china China Voice church cityfund claims claims process clawback commission commodities commodity pool computer program congress Crown Forex currency death sentence denver diamond bar disgorgement Distribution Dodd-Frank donnan Dreier dunhill e-bullion elderly E-M Management SEC england Fairfield family FBI FDIC Fees female ponzi scheme financial advisor fine FINRA football forex fraud fufta fugitive Full Tilt gift card guilty plea GunnAllen hawaii Heckscher HSBC india invers forex janvey John Morgan JP Morgan kansas ken bell kenzie las vegas lawsuit lawyer libya Lifland machado Madoff Marian Morgan metro dream homes mets milberg millers a game Morgan European Holdings mortgage multiple schemes NCAA Net Winner new jersey notes objection Oxford Patrick Kiley paul burks PermaPave Pettengill Petters Picard poker Ponzi ponzi scheme ponzi scheme database ponzi scheme list Prime Rate profitable sunrise prosun pta puerto rico Rakoff real estate receiver receivership regulation relief defendants religion remission repeat offender restitution Rothstein RRA sec sentencing simmons sipa sipc snelling standing stanford stettin subpoena td bank treasury bonds treasury strip Tremont Trevor Cook UBS UFTA uga utah venture advisors Wachovia wilpon wire fraud woman zeek zeek rewards zeekler zeekrewards
Social
Recent SEC Releases
« Former Pastor Pleads Guilty in $2.5 Million Ponzi Scheme | Main | JP Morgan Given January 11th Deadline to Disclose Madoff-Related Documents; Investigation Related To Money Laundering Policies? »
Monday
Jan072013

While Rothstein Victims Wait, Appellate Court Hears Argument Over Entitlement To Forfeited Assets

When it became clear that Ft. Lauderdale power-attorney Scott Rothstein was behind a massive Ponzi scheme, federal authorities took quick action to preserve proceeds of the fraud, seizing tens of millions of dollars of assets that symbolized Rothstein's larger-than-life persona, including more than 20 properties, exotic cars that included a $1.5 million Bugatti, 304 pieces of jewelry, and $15 million Rothstein had wired to Morocco just before the scheme's collapse.  In all, the criminal forfeiture proceedings, as they are known in legal parlance, yielded approximately $50 million of assets acquired with proceeds of Rothstein's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme.  

However, now over three years later, not one of Rothstein's victims has seen a penny from the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee, who has been locked in a court battle with federal authorities over the right to dispose of those assets and distribute proceeds to victims.  Instead, in what legal experts describe as a murky area of legal jurisprudence long overdue for a showdown, the seized assets have remained in legal limbo as the two unlikely adversaries litigated their claims to possession in a clash between criminal forfeiture law and bankruptcy jurisprudence.  

This week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument this week over entitlement to the assets, with at least one judge expressing unbridled skepticism at the government's position.  Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat, a long-tenured Eleventh Circuit justice and a respected expert on bankruptcy law, took an active role during the arguments, repeatedly questioning the government's attorneys and insinuating that the government's actions were overreaching and unwarranted.  While a ruling is forthcoming, many expect the issue to make its way to the doorsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court.  

The Dispute

The source of contention between the trustee and the government boils down to one simple issue: who can more efficiently distribute proceeds to victims of Rothstein's fraud.  United States District Judge James I. Cohn, a sitting judge in the Southern District of Florida where Rothstein's fraud was based, largely sided with prosecutors in forfeiture proceedings, questioning why assets should be returned to the bankruptcy estate where they would be returned to the pool of money available to all creditors - not just Rothstein's victims. Judge Cohn vocalized these concerns, noting that 

It would be patently inequitable to return that money to RRA's estate when it can be returned directly to the clients and qualified investors.

And he may have a point.  While Rothstein ran a classic Ponzi scheme, he did it in his position as chairman of one of South Florida's largest law firms, Rothstein Rosenfelt Adler ("RRA").  When the scheme collapsed, RRA soon was forced into bankruptcy and over 70 RRA lawyers lost their jobs.  The resulting bankruptcy proceeding included not only victims of Rothstein's scheme, but also other creditors expected when a large law firm went into bankruptcy, including landlords, service providers, and former clients. Thus, because investors would not be the only ones sharing in the pot of recovered assets, the additional number of claims means that subsequent distributions would be accordingly diluted.  

But Herbert Stettin, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee, has maintained that the assets rightfully belong to the bankruptcy estate, as they were acquired with tainted funds and thus constituted proceeds of Rothstein's fraud.  Already, Stettin's recovery efforts are likely to fall well short of the over $1 billion of estimated losses, due in part to Rothstein's dangerous penchant for burning through large amounts of money in activities with little or no prospect of recovery such as call girls, prostitutes, and nights on the town.  The inability to bring those disputed assets into the bankruptcy estate means that Stettin will have to rely largely on litigation, including clawbacks from scheme profiteers, to to bring assets into the bankruptcy estate.  

Increase in Forfeiture Actions Yields Positive Results 

While the relationship between authorities and court-appointed bankruptcy trustees or receivers has not always been so contentious, the government has recently embarked on an aggressive push in bringing criminal forfeiture actions that has resulted in a spike in recoveries by the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Program.  While recoveries remained fairly constant from 2000 - 2005, forfeitures suddenly doubled in 2006 and have continued at an increasing pace to a record $1.684 billion in 2011, as shown by the table below:

Year     Recoveries

  • 2000: $507,033,378
  • 2001: $439,930,324
  • 2002: $453,132,562
  • 2003: $466,968,207
  • 2004: $537,113,193
  • 2005: $578,803,657
  • 2006: $1,143,341,308
  • 2007: $1,583,388,625
  • 2008: $1,327,604,903
  • 2009: $1,583,388,625
  • 2010: $1,600,370,705
  • 2011: $1,684,810,126

The reports are available here.  While not solely attributable to the recent proliferation in Ponzi schemes, the correlation is unmistakable.  

However, while bankruptcy trustees and court-appointed receivers are obligated to distribute all net asset recoveries, the government is under no such obligation with forfeiture proceeds.  Instead, the government is given sole discretion in determining the proper use of the funds, and these decisions are not subject to review or judicial oversight.  According to financial statements provided by the DOJ, on average less than one-third of yearly recoveries is used to compensate fraud victims.  

Victims Still Waiting

The dispute could arguably be blamed for the reason that, despite Rothstein's scheme unraveling more than three years ago, victims have yet to see a single penny from Stettin's recovery efforts.  Indeed, the recovery and disposal of assets acquired with scheme proceeds occurs soon after a receiver or trustee's appointment, and the resulting proceeds are often used to fund initial distributions.  While clawback litigation is also a significant source of asset recoveries, fruits of those efforts are often not realized until years later after the litigation has worked its way through the system.  

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: News today
    What i do not understood is actually how you're not actually a lot more well-appreciated than you may be right now. You're so intelligent. You realize therefore significantly relating to this subject, produced me for my part consider it from a lot of various angles. Its like women and men aren't ...

Reader Comments (1)

General creditors (such as those who hope to recover in the bankruptcy) have NO claim to the funds recovered in forfeiture---therefore, the Bankruptcy trustee is within his rights to fight hard to have a stake. see example quote from: US v. French, 822 F. Supp. 2d 615 - Dist. Court, ED Virginia 2011
"A majority of jurisdictions have held that an unsecured, general creditor (e.g. Paragon) does not have an interest in forfeited property; therefore, it cannot contest the property's takeover and distribution by the government. "

January 16, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterfolly

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>