Jury Clears Law Firm Dentons in Multi-Million Dollar Fraud Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
The Plaintiffs Venezuelan entities Cines Unidos, S.A. and two individuals, Philip Robert Henriquez and Fernando Lauria had alleged that the Defendants participated in an elaborate, international fraud and Ponzi scheme that caused them millions of dollars in losses.
The dispute centered on a transaction that had involved Venezuelan bolivars (VEF) and U.S. dollar promissory notes. The Plaintiffs claimed that Dentons and Rammelt, along with other Defendants not on trial, had stolen millions of dollars between September and December 2016 through a fraudulent scheme. The law firm and its partner had vigorously denied the allegations, maintaining that they had acted appropriately and professionally within the bounds of legal representation.
Cause
The central cause of the lawsuit was the Plaintiffs’ belief that the Defendants had facilitated and provided substantial assistance to a group of individuals and foreign corporations who had allegedly misrepresented a financial transaction. Specifically, the Plaintiffs asserted that they had deposited bolivars for the purpose of purchasing U.S. dollar promissory notes that a company named Digold Overseas, S.A. failed to honor. The Plaintiffs’ losses had stemmed directly from the failure of that promised exchange.
Injury
The Plaintiffs claimed significant financial harm. They had sought to recover millions of U.S. dollars lost as a result of the failed transaction. The injury had involved the total loss of the deposited bolivar funds and the failure to receive the promised U.S. dollar equivalent.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought a judgment for compensatory damages to recover the full amount of bolivars they had deposited indirectly or directly for the transaction. Since the case alleged fraud, the Plaintiffs also potentially sought punitive damages, which a jury can award to punish a Defendant for gross misconduct, though the Verdict Form only addressed compensatory amounts tied to the bolivars.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Cines Unidos, S.A | Philip Robert Henriquez | Fernando Lauria
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Simon Ferro, Jr | Alexander F. Fox | Eduardo F Rodriguez
Experts for Plaintiff(s): JoNel Newman | Fred Aarons | Pedro A. Palma
Defendant(s): Dentons US, LLP | Susan J. Rammelt (s/k/a Susan J. Greenspon)
Counsel for Defendant(s): Harley S. Tropin | Dyanne E. Feinberg | Javier A. Lopez | Tal J Lifshitz | Bryan R. Cleveland | Leon N Patricios | Maia Aron | Rasheed Nader | Jorge L Piedra
Experts for Defendant(s): Tania Reif | Fernando C. Alonso
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs had pursued multiple claims against Dentons and Rammelt, all centered on the law firm's alleged involvement in the fraudulent scheme.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation: This was the first claim, where the Plaintiffs asserted that Rammelt and Dentons had intentionally made a false statement about a material fact to the Plaintiffs. To succeed, the Plaintiffs needed to prove that the Defendants knew the statement was false when they made it and that the Plaintiffs had relied on it.
Civil Conspiracy to Defraud: The second claim asserted that Rammelt and Dentons had agreed with others to commit the fraudulent act, which in turn resulted in damages to the Plaintiffs.
Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty: This complex claim was crucial to the Plaintiffs’ case. It alleged that other primary Defendants (Digold Overseas, S.A., through its principals) had breached a fiduciary duty they owed to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs then had to prove that Rammelt and Dentons knew about the breach and provided substantial assistance to the primary wrongdoer to help them commit that breach.
Defense
The defense team for Dentons and Rammelt had filed a comprehensive response, denying every material allegation of the Complaint.
The Defendants asserted that they had not made any false or intentional misstatements to the Plaintiffs and that they had not possessed the knowledge required for the fraud and conspiracy claims. Their defense implied that their professional role had been one of legal counsel, separate from the alleged bad acts of other parties in the financial transaction.
Dentons and Rammelt had also raised several affirmative defenses. One key defense centered on the Statute of Limitations, arguing that the Plaintiffs had waited too long to file their claims after they reasonably should have discovered the alleged fraud. Another defense, Comparative Fault, suggested that if any fault existed, it was wholly or partially the Plaintiffs’ own responsibility. They also argued that many of the alleged misrepresentations had fallen outside the scope of their legal advice, thereby protecting the firm from liability.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a comprehensive verdict entirely in favor of the Defendants, Dentons US, LLP and Susan J. Rammelt, on all counts presented. The jurors meticulously answered the required questions on the verdict form, and their answers clearly established that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof for liability.
Since the jury found no liability on the major claims: Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Civil Conspiracy, and Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty they did not consider or award any damages to the Plaintiffs. The verdict affirmed that the law firm and its partner had not committed the wrongful acts the Plaintiffs alleged.