Sidley Austin Fighting Claims the Firm Helped $1.3B Woodbridge Ponzi Scheme
Attorneys for receiver Michael Goldberg, an Akerman partner in Fort Lauderdale, claim several firms helped extend the life of the real estate investment fraud at Woodbridge, which was founded in Boca Raton.
December 03, 2019 at 06:42 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Sidley Austin is fighting claims that the law firm helped perpetuate the $1.3 billion Woodbridge Ponzi scheme, which had deep roots in South Florida.
A $500 million lawsuit filed on behalf of the receiver, Akerman's Michael Goldberg, alleges Sidley and Washington partner Neal Sullivan were "heavily involved" in the legal matters of Woodbridge Group of Cos., which was led by California executive and imprisoned mastermind Robert Shapiro. Other law firms and more than a dozen attorneys were named in the complaint.
"We believe the claims asserted against the firm and Mr. Sullivan are without merit, and we intend to defend the case vigorously," a spokesman for Sidley said Tuesday. Sullivan is the global leader of Sidley's regulatory and enforcement practice.
Shapiro pleaded guilty to mail and wire fraud conspiracy and income tax evasion and was sentenced in October by U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami to 25 years in prison.
He promised investors would profit by putting their money into his low-risk, high-interest loans that were issued on real estate owned by third parties. But the real estate either didn't exist or was secretly owned by Shapiro, who siphoned off millions of dollars for catered parties, chartered aircraft, limousines, luxury cars and hotel stays.
Law firms like Sidley prepared documents that extended the fraud, according to the lawsuit filed by Goldberg, Fort Lauderdale-based chairman of Akerman's fraud and recovery practice and the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust receiver.
"The law firms and attorneys that are defendants in this complaint aided and abetted numerous securities violations and fraudulent acts," Goldberg's lawyers wrote in the complaint filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court. "Some drafted offering documents replete with false statements that they knew were false. Some prepared negligent legal opinion memorandums to be shared with investors. Some assisted Shapiro in concealing his fraud."
In 2015, Sidley allegedly prepared a legal opinion that Woodbridge then used to assure people their investments in the company were legally sound. Goldberg alleged Sidley knew or should have known that its conclusions were heavily contested by state regulators who were probing whether Woodbridge was a Ponzi scheme.
Tthe other law firms named as defendants in Goldberg's 262-page, 62-claim lawsuit include Davis Graham & Stubbs; Halloran & Sage; Balcomb & Green; Rome McGuigan; Bailey Cavalieri; Robinson & Cole; Finn Dixon & Herling; and Haight Brown & Bonesteel, along with lawyers at those firms. Those other firms and lawyers did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
"We're trying to pick up the pieces for these people and help them recover their massive — and tragic— losses," Louis Miller, a partner at Miller Barondess who is representing Goldberg, said in a statement. "We look forward to facing the defendants in a court of law and holding them responsible for the devastating losses they helped cause."
Woodbridge was founded in Boca Raton, which remained a sales hub for the company after the headquarters moved to the Los Angeles suburb of Sherman Oaks. Shapiro owned property in Palm Beach County and was registered to vote in Florida.
Woodbridge, which collapsed into bankruptcy in December 2017, was one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever charged in Florida. The Securities and Exchange Commission charged more than 275 limited liability companies under the Woodbridge umbrella were used to defraud more than 8,400 investors, including 2,600 people who invested $400 million in retirement savings.
|Read More:
CEO Sentenced to 25 Years for Leading $1.3 Billion Real Estate Ponzi Scheme
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
- 2NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 3Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
- 4Reminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
- 5Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
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