Fox Rothschild Headed to New Jersey Supreme Court in Case Stemming From Ponzi Scheme
The high court's review follows an appeals court ruling that revived a claim from a U.K. real estate investor alleging Fox Rothschild improperly let $2.4 million flow through an attorney trust account to a fraudster.
November 20, 2018 at 03:42 PM
3 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court will review a London-based real estate investor's lawsuit accusing Fox Rothschild of improperly transferring $2.4 million from the firm's attorney trust account to now-convicted Ponzi schemer Eliyahu Weinstein.
With a notice handed down Nov. 16 and made public Monday, New Jersey's high court agreed to consider whether U.K. real estate investor Moshe Meisels can maintain his claims of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty against Fox Rothschild. Meisels alleged that he was bilked by Weinstein—who previously pleaded guilty to running a yearslong, real estate Ponzi scheme that caused $200 million in losses—and that more than $2.4 million he lost moved through Fox Rothschild's attorney trust account.
The state high court's review comes after an intermediate appeals court in June revived Meisels' conversion claim against the law firm, while it also kept intact a trial court's dismissal of the fiduciary breach claims.
Meisels alleged that he and Weinstein reached an agreement to invest in property in Irvington, New Jersey. In connection with that deal, Weinstein in 2007 directed Meisels to transfer a portion of the investment into Fox Rothschild's attorney trust account, according to court documents. Weinstein, who was later sentenced to 22 years in prison for his Ponzi scheme, told Meisels at the time that Fox Rothschild was carrying out legal work on the property purchase.
Meisels transferred the money, and it later went into the coffers of some of Weinstein's businesses, with $75,000 of it going to Fox Rothschild. The money was never used to purchase any property and, in his suit against the firm, Meisels alleged that Fox Rothschild effectively aided Weinstein as he carried out his fraud.
Lawyers from Fox Rothschild attacked Meisels' claims on several fronts, ultimately convincing a trial court to dismiss them in a summary judgment ruling. Among other arguments, Fox Rothschild said Meisels couldn't pursue his conversion claim because he didn't do enough to show that he actually owned the money he allegedly lost, and because he never demanded its return.
Meisels countered that, while the transfers to the attorney trust account technically came from a company called Rightmatch Ltd., the business was serving merely as a conduit for the London-based Meisels to help convert his own personal funds from the British pound to U.S. dollars.
In June, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division found against the law firm on both of those arguments. The appeals court held that Meisels had done enough to prove it was his money that flowed through the firm's trust account. The court also noted that under the facts of this particular case, Meisels wasn't required to demand his money back to be able to claim conversion in court.
The appeals court did, however, come down on Fox Rothschild's side with respect to Meisels' breach of fiduciary duty claim. The appellate ruling affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Fox Rothschild didn't owe any fiduciary duty to Meisels, leaving that claim dismissed.
Fox Rothschild's defense lawyer, Francis Devine III of Pepper Hamilton, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did a lawyer for Meisels, Brian Condon of Condon Catina & Mara in Nanuet, New York.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
