|  | | 2009 News and Press Releases | | |
HEADLINE NEWS:
Stanford’s Wife Sues Her Ex-Divorce Lawyer for $200 Million
Laurel Brubaker Calkins
Bloomberg. September 25, 2009
_________________________________________________________________________
EXCERPT: Susan Stanford, the estranged wife of accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford, is suing her former divorce lawyer for failing to tell her of a verbal offer to settle her divorce for $200 million last year. Susan Stanford wants lawyer Nancy Rommelmann to pay her that amount now for alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty for not passing along the offer at a January 2008 hearing. Stanford is asking for “$200 million plus’’ in damages, interest and attorneys fees in a complaint filed yesterday in state court in Houston, according to the court’s Web site. “If the plaintiff had been made aware of the substantial sum offered as settlement in her divorce proceedings, she would have readily accepted,’’ Susan Stanford’s current attorney, Michael P. Mallia, said in the complaint. By the time his client learned of the offer, “the substantial community property assets at issue in her divorce proceedings” had been seized or frozen,’’ he said. Susan Stanford filed for divorce in November 2007, more than a year before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seized the financier’s assets on accusations he ran a $7 billion scheme involving the sale of certificates of deposit through his Antiguan bank. When the divorce was filed, Stanford was considered a billionaire and ranked 205th on Forbes’ 2008 list of richest Americans. […] Susan Stanford was awarded $100,000 in monthly support in January 2008. Allen Stanford was also ordered to pay the mortgage, insurance and housekeeping expenses for her $2.4 million, 7,000-square-foot Houston home, as well as the same expenses on the $1.3 million, 2,800-square-foot high-rise condominium that is the home of their daughter, Randi. Susan and Randi Stanford are fighting efforts by Stanford’s court-appointed receiver to sell both their homes and evict them from the condominium, which they’re presently sharing. |
|
|
