Supreme Court allows Stanford Ponzi scheme suits

Recent Cases

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that victims of former Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford's massive Ponzi scheme can go forward with class-action lawsuits against the law firms, accountants and investment companies that allegedly aided the $7.2 billion fraud.

The decision is a loss for firms that claimed federal securities law insulated them from state class-action lawsuits and sought to have the cases thrown out. But it offers another avenue for more than 21,000 of Stanford's bilked investors to try to recover their lost savings.

Federal law says class-action lawsuits related to securities fraud cannot be filed under state law, as these cases were. But a federal appeals court said the cases could move forward because the main part of the fraud involved certificates of deposit, not stocks and other securities.

The high court agreed in a 7-2 decision, with the two dissenting justices warning that the ruling would lead to an explosion of state class-action lawsuits.

Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison after being convicted of bilking investors in a $7.2 billion scheme that involved the sale of fraudulent certificates of deposits from the Stanford International Bank. They supposedly were backed by safe investments in securities issued by governments, multinational companies and international banks, but those investments did not exist.

Related listings

  • Man pleads not guilty in deadly Lodi crash

    Man pleads not guilty in deadly Lodi crash

    Recent Cases 02/03/2014

    A man has pleaded not guilty to murder, driving under the influence and other charges in a car crash in Central California that killed five members of a family, including a pregnant woman. The Record of Stockton reports that 28-year-old Ryan Morales ...

  • Supreme Court orders stay of execution

    Supreme Court orders stay of execution

    Recent Cases 01/30/2014

    The U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of execution for Missouri death row inmate Herbert Smulls on Tuesday night. Justice Samuel Alito signed the order that was sent out after President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech, about two-an...

  • Court upholds approval of BP oil spill settlement

    Court upholds approval of BP oil spill settlement

    Recent Cases 01/13/2014

    Over BP's objections, a federal appeals court on Friday upheld a judge's approval of the company's multibillion-dollar settlement with lawyers for businesses and residents who claim the massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico cost them money. BP...

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.