Pulman, Cappuccio, Pullen & Benson, LLP Files $80 Million Lawsuit
Recent Cases
SAN ANTONIO--(Business Wire)--
Pulman, Cappuccio, Pullen & Benson, LLP filed a lawsuit today in a San Antonio,
Texas state court on behalf of 97 former investors at Stanford International
Bank. The lawsuit, styled Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., seeks almost $80
million in damages from insurance brokers Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. and Bowen,
Miclette & Britt, Inc. and from a trust company, Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee,
affiliated with a Panamanian law firm.
"Allen Stanford didn`t build this bank all by himself," said lead attorney and
firm managing partner Randy Pulman. "He had help. Companies like Willis, Bowen
Miclette, and the Aleman firm and trust company were too close to the action at
Stanford International Bank to avoid responsibility for this debacle."
Stanford International Bank took in $7.2 billion in deposits from all over the
United States and Latin America until it was shut down this February by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC claims that the bank was a "massive
Ponzi scheme" whose founder, Allen Stanford, is in jail outside of Houston,
Texas awaiting trial.
The lawsuit against the insurance brokers seeks to hold them responsible for
"Safety and Security" letters they sent to the plaintiffs saying that deposits
at Stanford International Bank were protected by insurance and that the bank was
made up of "first class business people." "Allen Stanford counted on these
insurance companies to help him separate our clients from their money - now,
we`re counting on them to put it back. It is against the law in Texas for an
insurance broker to tell someone something is insured when it`s not," explained
Pulman.
Many of the plaintiffs` Stanford deposits were held in trust accounts served by
Stanford Trust Company Limited and Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee Trust (BVI)
Limited as trustees. The lawsuit alleges that the trust company, the firm, and
its principals breached fiduciary duties to the trusts.
The lawsuit also seeks damages from several individual employees of those
companies, and several former employees at Stanford Fiduciary Investor Services
and Stanford Trust Company. The suit alleges that all the defendants are also
liable for securities fraud.
Randy Pulman has already filed suit on behalf of five Stanford depositors
against Lloyd`s of London and the Stanford Receiver in a Dallas, Texas federal
court. The lawsuit, styled De Leon v. Lloyd's of Lond, seeks damages and a
declaration from the court that the proceeds of Stanford International Bank`s
"Bankers Blanket Bond" insurance policies should be held for the depositors.
Pulman, Cappuccio, Pullen & Benson, LLP is a fifteen-lawyer firm in San Antonio,
Texas that specializes in representing investors and businesses in litigation
and transactions. The firm is also home to San Antonio`s second largest
bankruptcy practice. For more information, visit the firm website at
http://www.pulmanlaw.com.
Related listings
-
SEC Won't Challenge Stimulus
Recent Cases 04/19/2009South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster says a lawsuit broughtagainst the state over federal stimulus money is flawed and premature. But McMaster said in a filing with the Supreme Court on Monday that hewon't oppose the state Supreme Court tak...
-
Texas Supreme Court Justice Sues over Ruling
Recent Cases 01/29/2009Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht sued the Texas Ethics Commission over its ruling that reduced legal fees constitute a political donation. Hecht says the Jackson Walker law firm represented him in a 2006 proceeding "that affected the free spe...
-
EU court: Ryanair won't have to pay back subsidy
Recent Cases 12/16/2008Budget airline Ryanair may no longer have to pay back a euro4.5 million ($6.16 million) subsidy to the Belgian state after a court ruled Thursday against an EU order to refund the sum.The European Union's appeals court said antitrust regulators made ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.