DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investigations Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme - Public Version - August 31, 2009 Report No. OIG-509 Report of Investigation Case No. OIG-509 - Public Version - Table of Contents Page Introduction....................................................................................................................1 Scope of the Investigation..............................................................................................3 I. Document Preservation and Meetings with Senior-Level Officials....................................................................................3 II. E-mail Searches and Reviews of E-mails ......................................................3 III. Document Requests and Review of Records.................................................4 IV. Document and Information Requests to Independent Third-Parties..............................................................................5 V. Retention of Expert in Analyzing Examination and Investigatory Work..................................................................................5 VI. Retention of Expert in Recovering E-mails...................................................6 VII. Testimony and Interviews..............................................................................7 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................20 Results of the Investigation ...........................................................................................42 I. SEC 1992 INVESTIGATION OF AVELLINO & BIENES.........................42 A. Customers Complained about Avellino & Bienes’ Investments ..............................................................................................42 B. SEC Contacted Avellino and Suspected that Avellino & Bienes Was Selling Unregistered Securities and Running A Ponzi Scheme.......................................................................................44 C. Counsel for Avellino & Bienes Contacted the SEC and Avellino and Bienes Came in for Voluntary Joint Testimony.................45 D. The SEC Conducted a Brief, Limited Cause Examination of Madoff .....................................................................................................47 1. The Examination was Conducted by a Relatively Inexperienced Team and Its Scope was Limited ........................47 i 2. A Net Capital Review was Performed and the SEC Examiners Sought DTC Records From Madoff, Not from DTC directly.................................................................48 3. The Examiners Never Looked into Where the Money That Was Used to Pay Back Avellino & Bienes’ Investors Came From...................................................................................49 4. The Examiners Were Aware of Madoff’s Stature .......................50 E. The SEC Filed a Complaint against Avellino & Bienes for Selling Unregistered Securities, But the Complaint Did Not Allege Fraud and Did Not Assert Any Claims Against Madoff. ....................................................................................................50 F. The Trustee Retained Price Waterhouse to Conduct an Audit of Avellino & Bienes’ Financial Statements and Conducted Discovery But Its Jurisdiction was Limited .........................53 G. Price Waterhouse Experienced Great Difficulties in Conducting its Audit of Avellino & Bienes’ Financial Statements and a Request was made to the Presiding Judge for Additional Time.......................................................................55 H. After the Request for Additional Time was Denied, Price Waterhouse Issued its Report But was Unable to Render an Opinion on Avellino & Bienes’ Financial Statements.............................56 I. The SEC Conducted Limited Discovery About Madoff But Avellino & Bienes Objected Aggressively and it is Unclear if the SEC Obtained any Relevant Information ........................57 J. A Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction was Entered on Consent Against the Defendants, Penalties were Assessed And the Investigation was Closed............................................................58 K. Conclusion ...............................................................................................59 II. SEC REVIEW OF 2000 AND 2001 MARKOPOLOS COMPLAINTS..............................................................................................61 A. Markopolos Approached the SEC’s Boston Office in May 2000 with Evidence that Madoff was Operating a Ponzi Scheme.....................................................................................................61 1. The 2000 Submission...................................................................61 2. Markopolos Met with Grant Ward, a Senior SEC Enforcement Official ...................................................................63 3. Ward Decided Not to Pursue the 2000 Submission.....................64 4. Ward’s Testimony Regarding the 2000 Submission is Suspect .....................................................................................65 ii B. Markopolos Made a Second Submission to the Boston Office in March 2001 ..................................................................67 1. The 2001 Submission...................................................................67 2. Boston Forwarded the 2001 Submission to NERO .....................70 3. NERO Decided Not to Investigate Madoff Only One Day After Receiving the 2001 Submission..................................71 4. Two Articles Were Published in May 2001 Questioning the Legitimacy of Madoff’s Returns .......................74 5. NERO Did Not Reconsider Its Decision Not to Investigate Madoff After Publication of the Articles ..................76 III. SEC 2004 OCIE WASHINGTON DC CAUSE EXAMINATION OF MADOFF ...................................................................77 A. An Employee of a Registered Hedge Fund Provided The OCIE Investment Management Group With A Detailed Complaint About Madoff ..........................................................77 1. During Due Diligence of Madoff Feeder Funds, Fund Managers Identified Red Flags in Madoff’s Representations ...........................................................................78 2. MarHedge Article Raised Red Flags About Madoff’s Returns .........................................................................80 3. Investment Management Examiners Would have Validated Madoff’s Returns.........................................................82 4. Investment Management Examination Group Referred the Complaint to the Broker-Dealer/ Self-Regulatory Organization Examination Group .....................82 5. SRO Group Received the Complaint No Later Than the Fall of 2003...................................................................84 6. OCIE’s SRO Examination Group Had No Policies Or Procedures for Handling Tips or Complaints .........................85 7. OCIE Received Another Tip About Madoff in December 2003 ............................................................................85 8. It Appears Richards First Sent McCarthy the Barron’s Article About Madoff in 2001 ......................................86 9. Richards and McCarthy Called Madoff Prior to OCIE’s Examination....................................................................87 B. SRO Group Began Planning Its Examination of Madoff in December 2003 ........................................................................................89 iii 1. The Madoff Examination Team Consisted Entirely of Attorneys......................................................................................89 2. OCIE Expanded Rapidly and Lacked Trained Examiners ....................................................................................90 3. SRO Group Chose Not To Include Investment Management Examiners on Examination Team..........................91 4. Examination Planning Memorandum Stated Trading Data Would be Sought From the NASD......................................92 5. McCarthy Focused the Examination on Front-Running..............93 6. Swanson Acknowledged in Testimony that If He Had Carefully Reviewed the Complaint, He Would Have Investigated Additional Red Flags That Were Raised ................95 7. Donohue Acknowledged Issues Raised in the Hedge Fund Manager’s Complaint Other Than Front-running Should Have Been Investigated...................................................95 8. The Examination Did Not Focus on Red Flags Raised in MarHedge Article About Madoff’s Trades Not Being Seen in the Market......................................................96 9. Investment Management Examiners Did Not Read the Complaint’s Main Focus to be Front-running .............................96 C. Conduct of the Examination ....................................................................97 1. Examination Team Did Not Send Draft Letter to NASD............97 2. OCIE Examiners Did Not Request Documents from Madoff Feeder Funds...................................................................98 3. Draft OCIE Document Request Referenced Madoff’s Call with Richards and McCarthy................................................99 4. After Sending OCIE Document Request, Swanson Discussed Request with Madoff ..................................................99 5. Documents and Information Madoff Produced Contradicted the 2001 Articles and the 2003 Complaint, But OCIE Did Not Seek to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interviewed Bernard L. Madoffat the Metropolitan Correctional Center, 150 Park Row, New York, NY
    This document contains information that has been collected in connection with an investigation conducted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Inspector General (OIG). It contains confidential, privileged and sensitive information and should not be recopied or distributed without the express consent of the GIG. Interview of Bernard L. Madoff At approximately 3:00pm on June 17, 2009, Inspector General H. David Kotz and DeputyInspector General Noelle Frangipaneinterviewed Bernard L. Madoffat the Metropolitan Correctional Center, 150 Park Row, New York, NY. Madoff was accompanied by his attorney, Ira Lee Sorkin of the firm of Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, as well as an associate from that firm, Nicole DeBello. The interview began with IG Kotz advising Madoff of the general nature of the OIG investigation, and advising that we were investigating interactions the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had with Madoff and his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLP (BLM), going back to 1992. At that point, Sorkin advised Madoff that his only obligation was to tell the truth during the interview. The interview began with Madoff stating that the prosecutor and trustee in the criminal case "misunderstood" things he said during the proffer, and as a result, there is a lot of misinformation being circulated about this scandal, however, he added, "I'm not saying I'm not guilty." 2006 Exam: Madoff recalled that with respect to the 2006 OCIE exam, "two young fellows," (Lamore and Ostrow) came in "under the guise of doing a routine exam;" He said that during that time period, sweeps were being done of hedge funds that focused on ~-ont- running, and that was why he believed Ostrow and Lamore were at BLM.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ------X
    Case 1:09-cr-00213-DC Document 230 Filed 06/04/20 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : - v - : MEMORANDUM DECISION BERNARD L. MADOFF, : 09 Cr. 213 (DC) Defendant. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x APPEARANCES: BRANDON SAMPLE PLC Attorney for Defendant By: Brandon Sample, Esq. P.O. Box 250 Rutland, VT 05702 AUDREY STRAUSS, Esq. Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515 By: Drew Skinner, Esq. Louis A. Pellegrino, Esq. Assistant United States Attorneys One St. Andrews Plaza New York, NY 10007 CHIN, Circuit Judge: On March 12, 2009, defendant Bernard L. Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts of securities fraud and related crimes. On June 29, 2009, I sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 150 years. Mr. Madoff now moves for a reduction in sentence and "compassionate release" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as modified by the First Step Act (the "FSA"), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 2018). He Case 1:09-cr-00213-DC Document 230 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 16 contends that he suffers from "end-stage renal disease" and other serious medical conditions and that, as a consequence, he has a life expectancy of less than 18 months. Def. Motion at 2-3. Accordingly, he asks that the Court show him "mercy and compassion" and release him so that he is not incarcerated for "his final months on this earth." Id. at 25, 26. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Pack Bretagne
    2021 PRESS PACK BRETAGNE brittanytourism.com | CONTENTS Editorial p. 03 Slow down Take your foot off the pedal p. 04 Live Experience the here and now p. 12 Meet Immerse yourself in local culture p. 18 Share Together. That’s all ! p. 24 Practical information p. 29 EDITORIAL Bon voyage 2020 has been an unsettling and air and the wide open spaces. Embracing with the unexpected. A concentration of challenging year and we know that many the sea. Enjoying time with loved ones. the essential, and that’s why we love it! It of you have had to postpone your trip to Trying something new. Giving meaning to invites you to slow down, to enjoy life, to Brittany. These unusual times have been our daily lives. Meeting passionate locals. meet and to share: it delivers its promise a true emotional rollercoaster. They Sharing moments and laughs. Creating of uniqueness. So set sail, go for it, relax have also sharpened our awareness and memories for the years to come. and enjoy it as it comes. Let the eyes do redesigned our desires. We’re holding on to Let’s go for an outing to the Breton the talking and design your next holiday our loved ones, and the positive thoughts peninsula. A close, reassuring destination using these pages. of a brighter future. We appreciate even just across the Channel that we think we We wish you a wonderful trip. more the simple good things in life and know, but one that takes us far away, on the importance of seizing the moment.
    [Show full text]
  • Heuristics & Cognitive Biases
    McCombs Knowledge To Go November 11, 2014 Corporate Governance and Corporate Fraud by Grace Renbarger Lecturer, Department of Business, Government and Society Agenda . What is Corporate Fraud? . What are the Consequences? . How Big is the Problem? . Who Commits Corporate Fraud? . Why do People Engage in Fraud? . How can Fraud be Prevented? . What is the Role of Corporate Governance in Preventing Corporate Fraud? What is “Corporate Fraud”? What is “Corporate Fraud”? . Concept of “fraud” is very broad . Legal Definition: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading statements, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to his or her legal injury. Type of “White Collar” crime . Usually committed for personal or institutional gain. What is “Corporate Fraud”? . Occurs in wide variety of ways: . theft of cash, physical assets or confidential information . misuse of accounts . procurement fraud . payroll fraud . financial accounting misstatements . inappropriate journal vouchers . suspense accounting fraud . fraudulent expense claims . false employment credentials . bribery and corruption . money laundering . Can be committed by individuals employed by the corporation (internal) or by outsiders (external) . Victims can be the corporation itself or others (e.g., investors) What is “Corporate Fraud”? Focus today is on internal fraud Source: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants Consequences of Fraud . Criminal liability . Securities fraud . Insider trading . Tax evasion . Racketeering/RICO . Mail and wire fraud . Bribery . Money laundering . Obstruction of justice Consequences of Fraud . Individual officers, employees and agents criminally prosecuted for their own conduct .
    [Show full text]
  • Special Committee Report
    REPORT OF THE 2009 SPECIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ON FINRA’S EXAMINATION PROGRAM IN LIGHT OF THE STANFORD AND MADOFF SCHEMES SEPTEMBER 2009 SPECIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Charles A. Bowsher (Chairman) ———————————— Ellyn L. Brown ———————————— Harvey J. Goldschmid ———————————— Joel Seligman ———————————— INDUSTRY GOVERNOR ADVISERS OF COUNSEL Mari Buechner Paul V. Gerlach W. Dennis Ferguson Griffith L. Green G. Donald Steel Dennis C. Hensley Michael A. Nemeroff SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 A. The Stanford Case................................................................................................. 2 B. The Madoff Case................................................................................................... 4 C. Recommendations................................................................................................. 6 II. BACKGROUND ON FINRA EXAMINATION PROGRAM...................................... 9 III. EXAMINATIONS OF MEMBER FIRMS INVOLVED IN THE STANFORD AND MADOFF SCANDALS.................................................................. 11 A. The Stanford Case............................................................................................... 12 1. Background............................................................................................... 12 2. Daniel Arbitration and 2003 Cycle Examination...................................... 13 3. 2003
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case: 11-55577 02/12/2013 ID: 8510031 DktEntry: 43-1 Page: 1 of 46 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DICHTER-MAD FAMILY PARTNERS, No. 11-55577 LLP; PHILIP JAY DICHTER; CLAUDIA GVIRTZMAN DICHTER; RICHARD M. D.C. No. GORDON, 2:09-cv-09061- Plaintiffs-Appellants, SVW-FMO v. ORDER AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OPINION Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 10, 2013—Pasadena, California Filed February 12, 2013 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. Order; Per Curiam Opinion Case: 11-55577 02/12/2013 ID: 8510031 DktEntry: 43-1 Page: 2 of 46 2 DICHTER-MAD FAMILY PARTNERS V. UNITED STATES SUMMARY* Federal Tort Claims Act The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The panel held that the district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellants’ claims because they fell within the “discretionary function” exception to the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and adopted Parts I through V of the district court’s April 20, 2010 opinion, Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States, 707 F. Supp.2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2010). The panel also held that the additional allegations made in the Second Amended Complaint were insufficient to overcome the discretionary function exception to the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit a Pg 1 of 40
    09-01161-smb Doc 246-1 Filed 03/04/16 Entered 03/04/16 10:33:08 Exhibit A Pg 1 of 40 EXHIBIT A 09-01161-smb Doc 246-1 Filed 03/04/16 Entered 03/04/16 10:33:08 Exhibit A Pg 2 of 40 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the substantively consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and the Estate of Bernard L. Madoff UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, No. 08-01789 (SMB) Plaintiff-Applicant, SIPA LIQUIDATION v. (Substantively Consolidated) BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF, Debtor. IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Plaintiff, Adv. Pro. No. 09-1161 (SMB) v. FEDERICO CERETTI, et al., Defendants. 09-01161-smb Doc 246-1 Filed 03/04/16 Entered 03/04/16 10:33:08 Exhibit A Pg 3 of 40 TRUSTEE’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DEFENDANT KINGATE GLOBAL FUND, LTD. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that in accordance with Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Federal Rules”), made applicable to this adversary proceeding under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) and the applicable local rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and this Court (the “Local Rules”), Irving H.
    [Show full text]
  • Yom Kippur Morning 5770 Lehman Brothers, Failed
    YOM KIPPUR MORNING 5770 LEHMAN BROTHERS, FAILED BANKS, UNEMPLOYMENT, CITIBANK, ALLEN STANFORD, AIG, MARC DREIER, THE SEC, BEAR STEARNS, BAIL OUTS, BANKRUPTCIES, UNEMPLOYMENT, JAMES NICHOLSON, DELAYED RETIREMENTS, BANK OF AMERICA, UBS. BERNIE MADOFF, GREED IS GOOD, FINANCIAL MELTDOWN, MERRILL LYNCH, SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE LOANS, CALIFORNIA GOING BROKE. NON-PROFITS GOING BROKE, 401K’s DISAPPEARING, WALL STREET, TARP AND GREED, INVESTMENT BANKING IS ALL WE NEED. ECONOMY IN A FREEFALL, ECONOMY IN NEAR COLLAPSE, SUICIDE AND HEDGE FUNDS, PLUNGING HOME VALUES. THE IRS BANK FAILURES, DELAYED RETIREMENT, GM STOCK SELLING FOR A DOLLAR, STIMULUS PACKAGE, JOBS DISAPPEARING, COLLEGE ENDOWMENT FUNDS ARE SLASHED FRANK DIPASCALI, PONZI SCHEMES, CHURCH PONZI SCHEMES, AFRICAN PONZI SCHEMES, JEWISH PONZI SCHEMES, PONZI, PONZI, PONZI, BERNIE MADOFF My son David will tell you that the wildest roller coaster rides in the country are at Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio. However, looking at the American economy these past two years, we know that there have been some pretty wild rides here as well and, unlike the amusement park, these rides don’t end after two minutes. The last year and a half of the Bush Administration was a terrifying freefall. Not necessarily because of the wrong decisions being made; it just seemed that no one was in charge. No one spoke up. No one acted. No one took responsibility and the economy seemed to careen closer to the edge of the cliff with every passing day. The only real option for whoever won the Presidential election was to actually do something. Our congregants and our community, like most other congregations and communities, have been deeply affected by the events of the past two years.
    [Show full text]
  • FARA Second Semi-Annual Report
    U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending December 31, 2018 Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending December 31, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1-1 AFGHANISTAN......................................................1 ALBANIA..........................................................2 ALGERIA..........................................................3 ANGOLA...........................................................4 ANTIGUA & BARBUDA................................................5 ARGENTINA........................................................6 ARMENIA..........................................................7 ARUBA............................................................8 AUSTRALIA........................................................9 AUSTRIA..........................................................11 AZERBAIJAN.......................................................12 BAHAMAS..........................................................14 BAHRAIN..........................................................15 BANGLADESH.......................................................17 BARBADOS.........................................................19 BELGIUM..........................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • The BG News November 20, 1980
    Bowling Green State University ScholarWorks@BGSU BG News (Student Newspaper) University Publications 11-20-1980 The BG News November 20, 1980 Bowling Green State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news Recommended Citation Bowling Green State University, "The BG News November 20, 1980" (1980). BG News (Student Newspaper). 3805. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/3805 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in BG News (Student Newspaper) by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@BGSU. The B G News Thursday Bowling Green State University Nov. 20, 1980 University not alone in hiking fees to offset state cut by Diane Rado because of the budget cut. the verge of laying off certain that it (Cincinnati's fee) will settle $360 to $370. And this came after the and a decision may be made then to still reporter seasonal employees, such as those back to where it was before the cut." school hiked last year's fees from $335 raise fees. IN OCTOBER, KSU hiked tuition who are hired for snow removal, Mc- He added that if there is another to $360, Conger said. Miami University's board of When the University Board of $35 for spring semester, Dr. Robert Coy said. cut, he is certain that another fee in- He added that the school has decid- trustees will meet Dec. 6 and probably Trustees boosted student instructional McCoy, vice president for information Although it has planned no layoffs, crease will be imposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 17-1104 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Petitioners, v. ROBERTA G. DEVRIES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN B. DEVRIES, DECEASED, et al., Respondents. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY , Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY MCAFEE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH MCAFEE, AND WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRcuIT BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS DENYSE F. CLANCY RicHARD P. MYERS KAZAN, MCCLAIN, SATTERLEY Counsel of Record & GREENWOOD ROBERT E. PAUL 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 ALAN I. REicH Oakland, CA 94607 PATRick J. MYERS (877) 995-6372 PAUL, REicH & MYERS, P.C. [email protected] 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 735-9200 [email protected] Counsel for Respondents (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover) 281732 JONATHAN RUckdESCHEL WILLIAM W.C. HARTY THE RUckdESCHEL LAW PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN FIRM, LLC & DIAMONSTEIN 8357 Main Street 12350 Jefferson Avenue, Ellicott City, MD 21043 Suite 300 (410) 750-7825 Newport News, VA 23602 [email protected] (757) 223-4500 [email protected] Counsel for Respondents i QUESTION PRESENTED Under general maritime negligence law, does a manufacturer have a duty to warn users of the known hazards arising from the expected and intended use of its own product? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................i TABLE OF CONTENTS......................... ii TABLE OF APPENDICES .....................viii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES ...............x INTRODUCTION ...............................1 COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........6 A. Respondents were exposed to asbestos during the expected and intended use of petitioners’ machines ..................6 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The French Language in Louisiana Law and Legal Education: a Requiem, 57 La
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 57 | Number 4 Summer 1997 The rF ench Language in Louisiana Law and Legal Education: A Requiem Roger K. Ward Repository Citation Roger K. Ward, The French Language in Louisiana Law and Legal Education: A Requiem, 57 La. L. Rev. (1997) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol57/iss4/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT The French Language in Louisiana Law and Legal Education: A Requiem* I. INTRODUCTION Anyone familiar with the celebrated works of the sixteenth century French satirist Frangois Rabelais is sure to remember the protagonist Pantagruel's encounter with the Limousin scholar outside the gates of Orldans.1 During his peregrinations, the errant Pantagruel happens upon the Limousin student who, in response to a simple inquiry, employs a gallicized form of Latin in order to show off how much he has learned at the university.? The melange of French and Latin is virtually incomprehensible to Pantagruel, prompting him to exclaim, "What the devil kind of language is this?"' 3 Determined to understand the student, Pantagruel launches into a series of straightforward and easily answerable questions. The Limousin scholar, however, responds to each question using the same unintelligi- ble, bastardized form of Latin." The pretentious use of pseudo-Latin in lieu of the French vernacular infuriates Pantagruel and causes him to physically assault the student.
    [Show full text]