When it became clear that Ft. Lauderdale power-attorney
Scott Rothstein was behind a massive Ponzi scheme, federal authorities took
quick action to preserve proceeds of the fraud, seizing tens of millions of
dollars of assets that symbolized Rothstein's larger-than-life persona,
including more than 20 properties, exotic cars that included a $1.5 million
Bugatti, 304 pieces of jewelry, and $15 million Rothstein had wired to Morocco
just before the scheme's collapse. In all, the criminal forfeiture
proceedings, as they are known in legal parlance, yielded approximately $50
million of assets acquired with proceeds of Rothstein's $1.2 billion Ponzi
scheme.
However, now over three years later, not one of
Rothstein's victims has seen a penny from the court-appointed bankruptcy
trustee, who has been locked in a court battle with federal authorities over
the right to dispose of those assets and distribute proceeds to victims.
Instead, in what legal experts describe as a murky area of legal
jurisprudence long overdue for a showdown, the seized assets have remained in
legal limbo as the two unlikely adversaries litigated
their claims to possession in a clash between criminal forfeiture law and
bankruptcy jurisprudence.
This week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard
argument this week over entitlement to the assets, with at least one judge
expressing unbridled skepticism at the government's position. Circuit
Judge Gerald Tjoflat, a long-tenured Eleventh Circuit justice and a respected
expert on bankruptcy law, took an active role during the arguments, repeatedly
questioning the government's attorneys and insinuating that the government's
actions were overreaching and unwarranted. While a ruling is forthcoming,
many expect the issue to make its way to the doorsteps of the U.S. Supreme
Court.
The Dispute
The source of contention between the trustee and the
government boils down to one simple issue: who can more efficiently distribute
proceeds to victims of Rothstein's fraud. United States District Judge
James I. Cohn, a sitting judge in the Southern District of Florida where
Rothstein's fraud was based, largely sided with prosecutors in forfeiture
proceedings, questioning why assets should be returned to the bankruptcy estate
where they would be returned to the pool of money available to all creditors
- not just Rothstein's victims. Judge Cohn vocalized these concerns, noting
that
It would be patently inequitable to return that money to
RRA's estate when it can be returned directly to the clients and qualified
investors.
And he may have a point. While Rothstein ran a
classic Ponzi scheme, he did it in his position as chairman of one of South
Florida's largest law firms, Rothstein Rosenfelt Adler ("RRA").
When the scheme collapsed, RRA soon was forced into bankruptcy and over
70 RRA lawyers lost their jobs. The resulting bankruptcy proceeding
included not only victims of Rothstein's scheme, but also other creditors
expected when a large law firm went into bankruptcy, including landlords,
service providers, and former clients. Thus, because investors would not be the
only ones sharing in the pot of recovered assets, the additional number of
claims means that subsequent distributions would be accordingly diluted.
But Herbert Stettin, the court-appointed bankruptcy
trustee, has maintained that the assets rightfully belong to the bankruptcy
estate, as they were acquired with tainted funds and thus constituted proceeds
of Rothstein's fraud. Already, Stettin's recovery efforts are likely to
fall well short of the over $1 billion of estimated losses, due in part
to Rothstein's dangerous penchant for burning through large amounts of
money in activities with little or no prospect of recovery such as call girls,
prostitutes, and nights on the town. The inability to bring those
disputed assets into the bankruptcy estate means that Stettin will have to rely
largely on litigation, including clawbacks from scheme profiteers, to to bring
assets into the bankruptcy estate.
Increase in Forfeiture Actions Yields Positive
Results
While the relationship between authorities and
court-appointed bankruptcy trustees or receivers has not always been so
contentious, the government has recently embarked on an aggressive push in
bringing criminal forfeiture actions that has resulted in a spike in recoveries
by the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Program. While recoveries
remained fairly constant from 2000 - 2005, forfeitures suddenly doubled in 2006
and have continued at an increasing pace to a record $1.684 billion in 2011, as
shown by the table below:
Year
Recoveries
- 2000:
$507,033,378
- 2001: $439,930,324
- 2002:
$453,132,562
- 2003:
$466,968,207
- 2004:
$537,113,193
- 2005:
$578,803,657
- 2006:
$1,143,341,308
- 2007:
$1,583,388,625
- 2008:
$1,327,604,903
- 2009: $1,583,388,625
- 2010:
$1,600,370,705
- 2011:
$1,684,810,126
The reports are available here. While not
solely attributable to the recent proliferation in Ponzi schemes, the
correlation is unmistakable.
However, while bankruptcy trustees and court-appointed
receivers are obligated to distribute all net asset recoveries, the government
is under no such obligation with forfeiture proceeds. Instead, the
government is given sole discretion in determining the proper use of the funds,
and these decisions are not subject to review or judicial oversight.
According to financial
statements provided by the DOJ, on average less than one-third of yearly
recoveries is used to compensate fraud victims.
Victims Still Waiting
The dispute could arguably be blamed for the reason that,
despite Rothstein's scheme unraveling more than three years ago, victims have
yet to see a single penny from Stettin's recovery efforts. Indeed, the
recovery and disposal of assets acquired with scheme proceeds occurs soon after
a receiver or trustee's appointment, and the resulting proceeds are often used
to fund initial distributions. While clawback litigation is also a
significant source of asset recoveries, fruits of those efforts are often not
realized until years later after the litigation has worked its way through the
system.
For more news and analysis of Ponzi schemes, visit
Ponzitracker, a blog by Jordan Maglich, an attorney at Wiand Guerra King P.L.
For
more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us
through our corporate site.