|
|
|
Securitized Life Insurance Fraud Scheme - $400M Demand
Topics |
2009/02/09 12:00
|
The Coventry Group sold securitized life insurance polices for hundreds of millions of dollars through a pattern of bribes, bid-rigging, fraud, and falsification of documents in 45 states, Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading says in a $400 million demand in Federal Court.
Coventry has been sued for this by the attorney general of New York and the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, according to the complaint.
Ritchie claims Coventry, a buyer and seller of securitized life insurance policies in the secondary market, fabricated documents, falsified documents, paid kickbacks, and violated securities laws across the country.
In approximately October 2006, plaintiffs learned that many if not all the life insurance policies they had purchased from LST likely had been purchased by defendants in violation of federal, state, and local law and regulations, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs learned at the same time that there had been proceedings by government agencies threatened against or affecting defendants that could adversely affect plaintiffs' possession of clean and unencumbered title to the policies, contrary to the representations and warranties contained in the MPPAs.
Defendant LST I is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Montgomery Capital, and an alter ego of the Coventry Group, according to the complaint. Ritchie claims Coventry and Montgomery are under common control with the other defendants.
According to the complaint, Coventry First is a buyer in the secondary market for life insurance policies. It entered the market as a buyer in 2001, and by 2005 it or its affiliates had purchased 1,138 life insurance policies representing more than $3 billion in death benefits.
Ritchie is represented by Jeffrey Liddle with Liddle amp; Robertson.
Attached to the 22-page complaint are 58 pages of attachments, including then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's colorful 33-page complaint against Coventry and Montgomery in New York County Court, filed in October 2006; and the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation's 18-page Notice and Order to Show Cause of May 2007. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Sago Mine Disasters Settle
Court Watch News |
2009/02/03 09:31
|
Two families of dead mine workers form Sago Mine disaster settle death claims.
Charlotte, NC (JusticeNewsFlash.com)–Documents filed in the Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia claim lawyers, for the estates of two mine workers killed in the Sago Mine explosion, have settled their wrongful death claims. The West Virginia Gazette reported this week a total of six Sago MIne families may have resolved lawsuits involving the fatal mine explosion on January 2, 2006.
The deadly explosion happened at the Sago Mine owned by Wolf Run Mining a subsidiary of International Coal Group. The wrongful death lawsuits were filed by family members when a sealed underground tunnel exploded in the Sago Mine south of Buckhannon. A fire boss, Terry Helms, died after the blast from carbon monoxide poisoning and 12 remaining miners took shelter awaiting rescue. Only one man survived the more than 40 hours it took for rescue workers to reach the trapped miners.
Families of the deceased miners, who died from inhaling toxic fumes and smoke resulting in carbon monoxide poisoning, settled with two of the mine companies suppliers. Burrell Mining Products manufactured concrete foam blocks used to seal abandoned areas of the mine, like the sealed tunnel that exploded, and Raleigh Mine and Industrial Supply distributed the concrete foam blocks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Suit: Pfizer Testing on Nigerian Kids
Headline Court News |
2009/02/02 09:57
|
The 2nd Circuit reinstated two lawsuits accusing Pfizer of testing an experimental antibiotic on Nigerian children, causing the deaths of 11 children and leaving others blind, deaf, paralyzed or brain-damaged. A group of unwitting test subjects and their families filed two federal lawsuits against the world's largest pharmaceutical company, claiming Pfizer violated a customary international law prohibiting involuntary medical experimentation on humans.
The plaintiffs said Pfizer sent three physicians to Africa to give Nigerian children doses of its new antibiotic, Trovan. The doctors allegedly teamed up with Nigerian officials and recruited 200 sick children at Nigeria's Infectious Disease Hospital in Kano to receive the experimental drug.
Half of the patients were given Trovan, while the other half received Ceftriaxone, an FDA-approved antibiotic.
The plaintiffs say Pfizer knew that the results could be dangerous, as animal tests showed that the antibiotic had life-threatening side effects, including joint disease, abnormal cartilage growth, liver damage and a degenerative bone condition.
After approximately two weeks, Pfizer allegedly concluded the experiment and left without administering follow-up care, the ruling states. According to the appellants, the tests caused the death of 11 children, five of whom had taken Trovan and six of whom had taken the lowered dose of Ceftriaxone, and left many others blind, deaf, paralyzed, or brain-damaged.
Pfizer allegedly failed to obtain the informed consent of either the children or their parents, and specifically failed to disclose or explain the experimental nature of the study or the serious risks involved, Judge Parker summarized.
U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute and, alternatively, on the ground that U.S. courts were not the most convenient forum.
The federal appeals court in New York reversed on a 2-1 vote, disagreeing with Pauley's conclusion that the prohibition against human experimentation can't be enforced through the Alien Tort Statute.
The administration of drug trials without informed consent poses threats to national security by impairing our relations with other countries, Judge Parker wrote. The judge cited an Associated Press finding that the Trovan trials engendered so much distrust in the local population that they contributed to an 11-month boycott of a polio vaccination campaign in 2004.
Judge Pauley had acknowledged the international law norm, but concluded that it wasn't legally binding on the United States, because no single source or treaty had officially recognized it.
The 2nd Circuit said the courts must look to a variety of sources to determine whether an international norm is sufficiently specific, universally accepted, and obligatory for courts to recognize a cause of action to enforce the norm.
Judge Parker said the plaintiffs made their case for such a recognized norm.
Judge Wesley dissented, saying the majority had undertaken to define a 'firmly established' norm of international law, heretofore unrecognized by any American court or treaty obligation, on the basis of materials inadequate for the task. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Landis not Thrilled with Michael Jackson
Legal Business |
2009/01/29 09:08
|
Michael Jackson cheated director John Landis of his 50% share of profits from the Thriller video for the past 4 years, Landis' representative Levitsky Productions claims in Superior Court. In a separate complaint, Landis sued Jackson and Nederlander of California, which allegedly offered Jackson $400,000 for dramatic rights to the video.
Levitsky says Landis directed and co-wrote the 14-minute Thriller Video and Documentary in 1983 and is contractually entitled to a half share of the profits.
It claims Jackson and his defunct corporation, Optimum Productions, have refused to provide accounting or pay royalties for the past 4 years. The claim includes profits from Thriller video-related rights to video games, toys, comic books and DVDs.
In his complaint against Jackson, Optimum and Nederlander, Landis says Jackson did not have his permission to license the dramatic rights, for which Jackson allegedly has received, or will receive, $400,000 from Nederlander.
Landis and Levitsky are both represented by Miles Feldman with Liner Yankelevitz amp; Sunshine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girl Says Officer Forced Her into Oral Sex
Court Watch News |
2009/01/28 10:12
|
A girl says an Ulster County deputy sheriff forced her to perform oral sex on him under threat of arrest. She claims Ulster County knew deputy Jeffrey Geskie was unfit to be an officer as citizens had sued him and the county twice before for his violent and unconstitutional, unlawful acts.
nbsp; nbsp; The girl, now 18, says she was sunbathing legally in Marbletown at 2 p.m. on June 2, 2008, when Geskie, in uniform, approached her, claiming she was trespassing. She says he searched her purse, and claimed to find drug paraphernalia.
nbsp; nbsp; The complaint continues: Deputy Sheriff Geskie then indicated in sum or substance that if the plaintiff did not remove her clothes, she would be arrested, placed in prison and he would notify her prospective college institution of her arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia. Deputy Geskie recorded the name of her future college in a note. Deputy Geskie, while in full uniform and with his service weapon on his person indicated to the plaintiff that, in sum or substance, that she had three options:
(1) go to prison and have her school informed of her arrest;
(2) perform oral sex upon him; or
(3) have sexual intercourse with him.
Deputy Geskie further ordered the plaintiff that upon the removal of all of her clothes, she was [to] spin around for him several times so that he could see all of her exposed, naked body. Under color of law and under direct threat of incarceration and imprisonment, Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie did force the plaintiff to have oral sex with him including ejaculating in the plaintiff's mouth and face. Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie forced her to perform oral sex while he was wearing his uniform and under the threat of incarceration.
The complaint adds: On two separate occasions, Deputy Sheriff Geskie, the County of Ulster and the Ulster County Sheriff's Department have been sued by members of the public for his violent and unconstitutional, unlawful acts. (See attached Exhibit 'A,' Boos v County of Ulster, Ulster County Sheriff's Department and Deputy Jeffrey Geskie - Case Number 1:07-cv-00828 filed on 8/15/07, and Exhibit 'B,' Krom v County of Ulster, Ulster County Sheriff's Department and Deputy Jeffrey Geskie - Case Number 06-CV-0760 filed on June 19, 2006).
Upon information and belief, following the previous complaints against Deputy Sheriff Geskie, no action was taken by the municipality, County of Ulster, or the Ulster County Sheriff's Department. More egregious is the fact that the Ulster County Sheriff's Department awarded Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie meritorious service awards for 2005, 2006 and 2007 despite having knowledge of his previous unlawful acts against citizens and the public at large. Said awards condoned the acts of Deputy Geskie.
nbsp; nbsp; She demands $15 million. She is represented in Federal Court by Joseph O'Connor of Kingston. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mass. court orders Madoff associate to testify
Headline Court News |
2009/01/27 14:24
|
| A Superior Court judge has ordered an associate of alleged Ponzi scheme mastermind Bernard Madoff to testify before Massachusetts securities regulators after he failed to appear at previous hearings.pLawyers for Robert Jaffe had argued that Secretary of State William Galvin's attorneys did not have the authority to require Jaffe to testify./ppSuperior Court Judge Stephen Neel on Monday ruled that Jaffe must comply with the subpoena by Feb. 6./ppGalvin says Jaffe brought Massachusetts investors to Madoff and that those clients lost millions of dollars when his alleged $50 billion scheme collapsed./ppJaffe has said he had no knowledge of Madoff's actions and he was also a victim. His attorney, Stanley Arkin, said he was considering an appeal./ppWe are going to evaluate today's ruling and are considering an appeal in this very important issue of fundamental law, said Jaffe spokesman Elliot Sloane./ppGalvin said he's eager to move ahead with the investigation of Madoff's actions in Massachusetts. He said residents who lost money identified Jaffe as a conduit to Madoff./pp(Jaffe) has claimed he's a victim. If he's a victim he needs to tell us about it, Galvin said. We know he was the person who brought investors to Mr. Madoff. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules for worker over retaliation
Headline Topics |
2009/01/27 14:23
|
| Workers who cooperate with their employers' internal investigations of discrimination may not be fired in retaliation for implicating colleagues or superiors, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday.pThe justices held that a longtime school system employee in Tennessee can pursue a civil rights lawsuit over her firing./ppThe court voted to reverse the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to employees who merely cooperate with an internal probe rather than complain on their own or take part in a formal investigation./ppThe Cincinnati-based court was alone among federal appeals courts in its narrow view of the civil rights law, which was already understood to bar retaliation against people who complained about harassment and other discrimination./ppThe question here is whether this protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer's internal investigation. We hold that it does, Justice David Souter said for the court./ppVicky Crawford was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years as an employee of the school system for Nashville, Tenn., and Davidson County./p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
