Cozen O'Connor Can't Dodge Ponzi Scheme Suit
The firm can be held liable for an ex-lawyer's involvement in an alleged investment fraud scheme while he worked there, a judge found.
February 20, 2018 at 10:15 PM
4 minute read
Cozen O'Connor is still on the hook for the actions of one of its former lawyers while he was employed at the firm, but a federal judge has ruled that the firm can't be held liable for the lawyer's conduct after he moved to Blank Rome.
In an opinion filed Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Senior Judge Jan DuBois of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Cozen O'Connor's motion for summary judgment with respect to disbarred lawyer Charles Naselsky's actions while he was not employed at Cozen O'Connor. The judge otherwise denied summary judgment.
“This was a big win,” said William Harvey of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, who represents Cozen O'Connor. “The judge rejected the plaintiff's theory that this was a continuing conspiracy and that Cozen was responsible for actions and damages that the plaintiff suffered after Naselsky left Cozen.”
The decision stems from a case in which plaintiffs Kilbride Investments Ltd., Busystore Ltd. and Bergfeld Co. Ltd. accused Cozen O'Connor, Blank Rome and Cushman & Wakefield of fraudulently misrepresenting a development project in Philadelphia, leading the plaintiffs to invest more than $27 million.
The investors claimed Naselsky, a disbarred lawyer who once worked at both Cozen O'Connor and Blank Rome, conspired with Philadelphia real estate developers to get the investors to put millions of dollars into a project that would be barred by zoning restrictions.
The investors alleged that the law firms were part of a scheme orchestrated by Eliyahu Weinstein, who was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison for operating a massive Ponzi scheme that stole money from members of the Orthodox Jewish community under the guise of investing in Philadelphia real estate projects.
They alleged that Cushman & Wakefield fraudulently appraised a property in Philadelphia called River City that stretches from John F. Kennedy Boulevard to the Schuylkill River. Cushman & Wakefield denied the allegations and claimed Weinstein was the source of the investors' misfortune.
The case was originally filed in New York federal court, but was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2013 at Cozen O'Connor and Blank Rome's request. Naselsky is not a defendant in the suit. He was sentenced to 70 months in prison for an unrelated tax evasion scheme.
With regard to the first count, conspiracy, DuBois said Cozen O'Connor can only be held liable for Naselsky's actions during the time he was employed at the firm, which ended in July 2006, when he moved to Blank Rome. And, the opinion said, Cozen O'Connor cannot be held liable for claims that Naselsky provided Cushman & Wakefield a false contract price of $50 million.
However, the plaintiffs did present enough evidence to create questions of material fact over whether there was underlying fraud, and whether others were involved in a conspiracy while Naselsky worked at Cozen O'Connor.
With regard to the second count, aiding and abetting fraud, DuBois said, “Based on this evidence, a jury could conclude that Naselsky, while he was employed at Cozen, provided substantial assistance to [River City promoter Ravi] Chawla in committing the fraud.” [Chawla was convicted in 2009 in an unrelated corruption case, but his conviction was vacated by a federal appeals court in 2012. Prosecutors then withdrew the charges in 2015, stating they would not be able to prove their case.]
Cozen O'Connor and Blank Rome both previously filed motions to dismiss, which were addressed in an October ruling. While some claims against the law firms survived, plaintiffs Berish Berger, Ardenlink Ltd. and Towerstates Ltd. were terminated from the case.
Mary Kay Brown of Brown McGarry Nimeroff represents the plaintiffs, and said her clients are happy with the decision and looking forward to trial.
Jayne Risk of DLA Piper in Philadelphia represents Cushman & Wakefield and could not be reached for comment. John Harkins Jr. of Harkins Cunningham in Philadelphia represents Blank Rome and declined to comment.
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'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Holland & Knight Launches Export Control Disputes and Advocacy Team
- 2Blake Lively's claims that movie co-star launched smear campaign gets support in publicist's suit
- 3Middle District of Pennsylvania's U.S. Attorney Announces Resignation
- 4Vinson & Elkins: Traditional Energy Practice Meets Energy Transition
- 5After 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
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