Facciola v. Greenberg Traurig LLP
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
2011 WL 2268950 (2011)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Mortgages, Limited and Radical Bunny, LLC offered investment products for sale. However, Mortgages and Radical Bunny were operating a Ponzi scheme. During the course of its operations, Mortgages retained Greenberg Traurig LLP (Greenberg) (defendant) as legal counsel. Robert Kant was Greenberg’s lawyer who was responsible for representing Mortgages. Kant knew that Mortgages and Radical Bunny had been committing violations of state and federal securities law. Yet, Kant prepared false and misleading private-offering memoranda for Mortgages and Radical Bunny, which were used to solicit investors. Kant also advised Mortgages and Radical Bunny on how to further ongoing securities sales. Eventually, Mortgages became insolvent, of which Kant was aware. Despite this knowledge, Kant prepared more private-offering memoranda for Mortgages without any disclosure regarding the risks associated with investing with Mortgages. Ultimately, both Mortgages and Radical Bunny collapsed financially and filed for bankruptcy. Investors (plaintiffs) sued Greenberg under the Arizona Securities Act for participating in or inducing the unlawful sale or purchase of securities. Greenberg filed a motion to dismiss the investors’ claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.