Declaration of Plaintiffs' Counsel ISO Motion for Final
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
u • 1 BRIGHTON INVESTMENTS, LTD., a [Related to Case Nos. BC 409658, BC 413821, 2 California limited partnership, et al, BC 413820 BC 422257 and BC 456932] 3 Defendants. March 1, 2017 4 Time: 8:30 a.m. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Department: 48 5 6 DOUGLAS HALL, as Co-Trustee of the 7 VIVIAN H. HALL IRA and Derivatively on Behalf of CRESCENT SECURITIES, 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 PAMELA CHAIS as executor of the estate 11 of STANLEY CHAIS, et al. 12 Defendants, 13 and 14 THE POPHAM COMPANY, 15 First Nominal Defendant, 16 and 17 MARLOMA SECURITIES, 18 Second Nominal Defendant. 19 AND 20 STEVEN HEIMOFF, as Trustee of the STEVEN HEIMOFF IRA and Derivatively 21 on behalf of MARLOMA SECURITIES, 22 Plaintiff, 23 v. 24 PAMELA CHAIS as executor of the estate of STANLEY CHAIS, et al, 25 Defendants, 26 and 27 THE POPHAM COMPANY, 28 {00063251.DOCX;} DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN SLiPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REID1BliRSEMENT OF EXPENSES • 1 2 and 3 MARLOMA SECURITIES, 4 Second Nominal Defendant. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {00063251.DOCX;} DECLARATION OF PLAINTiFF5' COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND A90TION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND RElA1BURSEMENT OF EXPENSES • • 1 I, Marvin Gelfand, hereby declare as follows: 2 1. I am a shareholder in the law firm of Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman 3 Grodin Law Corporation (the "Weintraub Firm") formerly Weismann Wolff Bergman 4 Coleman Grodin and Evall, LLP. I jointly submit this declaration with Barry Weprin of 5 Milberg, LLP (the "Milberg Firm") in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of 6 Derivative Settlement. 7 I, Barry Weprin, hereby declare as follows: 8 1. I am of counsel to Milberg LLP. I jointly submit this declaration with Marvin 9 Gelfand (Marvin Gelfand and Barry Weprin collectively, "Plaintiffs' Counsel") of the 10 Weintraub Firm in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Derivative Settlement. 11 We,Plaintiffs' Counsel, hereby jointly declare as follows: 12 2. In 2009, Plaintiffs Bottlebrush Investments, L.P., derivatively on behalf of The 13 Lambeth Company; Leghorn Investments, Ltd., derivatively on behalf of The Brighton 14 Company; Douglas Hall, as Co-Trustee of the Vivian Hall IRA, derivatively on behalf of both 15 The Popham Company and one of its limited partners, Marloma Securities; and Steven 16 Heimoff, as Trustee of the Steven Heimoff IRA, derivatively on behalf of both The Lambeth 17 Company and one of its limited partners, Crescent Securities) ("Plaintiffs") filed four separate 18 derivative actions against Stanley Chais,2 among others, in this Court seeking recovery of 19 funds lost in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, and alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary 20 duty, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment and fraudulent conveyance (the 21 "Derivative Actions") on behalf of the California Limited Partnerships against the Stanley 22 Chais Defendants3 and the Chais Related Defendants4 (collectively, the "Settling Defendants"). 23 ' Marloma Securities and Crescent Securities are the "Sub-Partnerships." Plaintiffs also filed amended complaints which, after Chais passed away named Pamela Chais as executor of the 24 2 Estate of Stanley Chaffs (the "Chaffs Estate"). The Stanley Chaffs Defendants are the Estate of Stanley Chaffs; Pamela Chaffs; Appleby Productions Ltd.; 25 3 Appleby Productions Ltd. Defined Contribution Plan; Appleby Productions Ltd. Money Purchase Plan; Appleby Productions Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan; Chaffs Investments, Ltd.; Chaffs 1991 Family Trust; and the Chaffs Family 26 Foundation. 27 4 The Chaffs Related Defendants are Emily Chasalow; Mark Chaffs; William Chaffs; Michael Chasalow; Miri Chaffs, Wrenn Chaffs; 1994 Trust for the Children of Stanley and Pamela Chaffs; 1996 Trust for the Children of 28 Stanley and Pamela Chaffs, referred to in the Complaint as The 1996 Trust for the Children of Pamela Chaffs And {00063251.DOCX; } 1 DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBLiRSEMENT OF EXPENSES • • 1 3. Plaintiffs' allege that since the 1970s, the late Stanley Chais purported to be in 2 the business of managing private capital investments. As part of this business, Chais created 3 the California Limited Partnerships, for which he was the general partner, and instigated the 4 creation of the Sub-Partnerships whose sole purpose was investing in the California Limited 5 Partnerships. Chais induced investors to invest with the California Limited Partnerships and 6 the Sub-Partnerships by falsely representing that he was personally investing, managing, and 7 overseeing their capital through atried-and-true, low risk method of"arbitrage trading" that 8 earned consistent returns regardless of market fluctuations. He also received hundreds of 9 millions of dollars in the guise of"management fees." 10 4. Plaintiffs further allege that unbeknownst to the investors, at the direction of 11 Chais, the California Limited Partnerships were "feeder funds" that placed all of the monies 12 invested with Madoff and BLMIS. In his action against Chais, the Trustee has alleged that 13 Chais was one of BLMIS' earliest investors and opened more than 60 accounts with BLMIS. 14 Stanley Chais; 1999 Trust For The Children Of Stanley And Pamela Chais; 1999 Trust for the Grandchildren of Stanley and Pamela Chais; Emily Chais 1983 Trust; Emily Chais Trust No. 1, Emily Chais Trust No. 2, and Emily 15 Chais Trust No. 3, referred to collectively in the Complaint as The Emily Chais Trust; Emily Chais Issue Trust No. 1 and Emily Chais Issue Trust No. 2, referred to collectively in the Complaint as The Emily Chais Issue 16 Trust; Mark Hugh Chais Trust No. 1, Mark Hugh Chais Trust No. 2, and Mark Hugh Chais Trust No. 3, referred 1 ~ to collectively in the Complaint as The Mark Hugh Chais Trust; Mark Hugh Chais Issue Trust No. 1 and Mark Hugh Chais Issue Trust No. 2, referred to collectively in the Complaint as The Mark Hugh Chais Issue Trust; 1 g Mark Hugh Chais 1983 Trust; William Frederick Chais Trust No. 1, William Frederick Chais Trust No. 2, and William Frederick Chais Trust No. 3, referred to collectively in the Complaint as The William Frederick Chais Trust; William Frederick Chais Issue Trust No. 1 and William Frederick Chais Issue Trust No. 2, referred to 19 collectively in the Complaint as The William F. Chais Issue Trust; William Frederick Chais 1983 Trust; The 20 William and Wrenn Chais 1994 Family Trust; Ari Chais 1999 Trust; Ari Chais Transferee Trust No. 1, referred to in the Complaint as The Ari Chais Transferee #1 Trust; Benjamin Paul Chasalow 1999 Trust; Benjamin Paul Chasalow Transferee Trust No. 1, referred to in the Complaint as The Benjamin Paul Chasalow Transferee #1 21 Trust; Chloe Frances Chais 1994 Trust, referred to in the Complaint as The Chloe Francis Chais 1994 Trust; Chloe Frances Chais Transferee Trust No. 1, referred to in the Complaint as The Chloe Francis Chais Transferee 22 #1 Trust; Jonathan Wolf Chais 1996 Trust, referred to in the Complaint as The Jonathan Wolf Chais Trust; Jonathan Chais Transferee Trust No. 1, referred to in the Complaint as The Jonathan Chais Transferee #1 Trust; 23 Justin Robert Chasalow 1999 Trust; Justin Robert Chasalow Transferee Trust No. 1, referred to in the Complaint as The Justin Robert Chasalow Transferee #1 Trust; Madeline Celia Chais 1992 Trust; Madeline Chais Transferee 24 Trust No. 1, referred to in the Complaint as The Madeline Chais Transferee #1 Trust; Rachel Allison Chasalow 1999 Trust; Rachel Allison Chasalow Transferee Trust, referred to in the Complaint as The Rachel Allison 25 Chasalow Transferee #1 Trust; Tali Chais 1997 Trust; Tali Chais Transferee Trust No. 1, referred to in the Complaint as The Tali Chais Transferee #1 Trust; Unicycle Trading Company; Unicycle Corp., individually and 26 as the General Partner of Unicycle Trading Company; Unicycle Corporation Money Purchase Plan; Onondaga, 27 Inc., individually and as General Partner of Chais Investments Ltd.; The Onondaga, Inc. Money Purchase Plan; The Onondaga, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan; Chais Management, Inc., individually and as General Partner 28 of Chais Management Ltd.; Chais Management Ltd.; and Chais Venture Holdings. {00063251.DOCX;} 2 DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBtiRSEMENT OF EXPENSES • • 1 ~ As is now well known, Madoff, acting through BLMIS, had been running a Ponzi scheme for 2 ~ many years. As a result, the investors in the California Limited Partnerships have lost their 3 entire investments. 4 5. Chais was solely responsible for the management and investment strategy of the 5 California Limited Partnerships and Plaintiffs allege he knew, or should have known, that 6 BLMIS was based on a fraud. Furthermore, as the general partner of the California Limited 7 Partnerships and a purported investment professional, Chais owed the investors contractual and 8 fiduciary duties, which were breached when, without the knowledge of the investors, he 9 invested their contributions with BLMIS without undertaking any meaningful supervisory role 10 over the performance of the investments; instead he abdicated all responsibility to Madoff and 11 BLMIS. 12 6. Plaintiffs also allege that Chais created numerous sham entities, which were 13 operated solely under Chais' direction and control, in an attempt to evade any potential 14 judgment against him. Hundreds of millions of dollars in cash has been distributed to these 15 sham entities, and other individuals related to Chais. 16 7. Also in 2009, the California Attorney General filed suit against Chais for 17 wrongful conduct arising from the investments in the Madoff Ponzi scheme (the "AG Action").