Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SHB's Answer to Nevin Shapiro complaint

SHB's Answer to Nevin Shapiro complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 188 |Likes:
Published by southfllawyers
Answer by SHB to Nevin Shapiro allegations
Answer by SHB to Nevin Shapiro allegations

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: southfllawyers on Jan 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDACASE NO.: 1:13-CV-20080-JEM
JOEL L. TABAS, in his capacity as both Chapter 7Trustee of Capitol Investments USA, Inc. and asAssignee to the Claims of Bayside CapitalManagement, LLC, et al.,Plaintiff,v.SHOOK, HARDY AND BACON, L.L.P. andMARC LEVINSON, an Individual,Defendants._______________________________________
DEFENDANTS’ SHOOK HARDY AND BACON, LLP.’SAND MARC LEVINSON’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT
Defendants, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP and Marc R. Levinson respond the Complaintas follows. All allegations not specifically admitted are denied.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Defendants admit that this action purports to be based on Federal statutes, Floridastatutes and the common law and seeks damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiredin the Court in which it was filed as well as in this Court. Defendants deny that they committedthe acts, torts or omissions alleged or that they are liable to Plaintiff.2. Defendants admit that venue lies in this District.
II. PARTIES, RELATED PERSONS AND RELATED ENTITIESA. The Debtors
3. On information and belief, Defendants admit that Capitol Investments USA, Inc.was a corporation organized under Florida law and that its principal place of business was in
Case 1:13-cv-20080-JEM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 1 of 39
 
CASE NO.: 1:13-cv-20080-JEM
 
2Miami-Dade County, Florida. On information and belief, Defendants assert that Nevin Shapirowas at all material times the principal, controlling shareholder, and officer of CapitolInvestments USA, Inc. Shapiro was, in all dealings reported to Defendants or observed by them,the sole actor for Capitol. On information and belief, Defendants admit that before the fall of 2006 Miriam Menoscal may have been listed by Capitol, as president of Capitol, howeverDefendants did not observe her ever asserting or assuming this role and in 2006 Defendants wereasked to memorialize her resignation, which they were told took place in 2005. In the fall of 2006, Defendants were advised that Menoscal had been a 10% shareholder until 2005. In the fallof 2006, they were asked to memorialize her lack of ownership. Defendants are withoutinformation sufficient to admit or deny the accuracy of claims of her ownership, title and role, orthe reasons for Menoscal’s resignation, which they were advised had occurred in 2005. Theremaining allegations of paragraph 3 are denied.4. On information and belief, Defendants admit that Pink Panther Enterprises, LLC("Pink Panther") was a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. On information andbelief, Defendants deny that Pink Panther held title to the Yacht. Defendants are withoutinformation sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, except that theyadmit that the Pink Panther bankruptcy was substantively consolidated into the Capitolbankruptcy.5. Defendants are without information or belief sufficient to admit or deny theallegations of paragraph 5, except that they admit that JAT was substantively consolidated intothe Capitol bankruptcy.
Case 1:13-cv-20080-JEM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 2 of 39
 
CASE NO.: 1:13-cv-20080-JEM
 
3
B. The Plaintiff 
6. On information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 6.7. Defendants admit that Tabas purports to be the assignee of the claims, if any, of the persons and entities noted.
C. The Defendants and Related Non-Parties
8. Admitted that Defendant Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P. (“SHB”) is a nationallaw firm organized as a Missouri limited liability limited partnership with various offices,including an office in downtown Miami, Florida. Otherwise, the allegations of Paragraph 8 areimmaterial and Defendants move to strike them.9. Admitted that Defendant Marc Levinson (“Levinson”) is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and was from 2003 to the present an attorney at SHB who worked out of the downtown Miami, Florida office. Admitted that Levinson’s practice concentrated on tortlitigation issues and procedures. Admitted that Levinson and Shapiro were close friends frommiddle school to 2003. Admitted that Levinson, albeit at the request of Shapiro and withShapiro’s full awareness of the concentration of his practice, agreed to represent Shapiro andlater Capitol on specific matters. To the extent the Complaint alleges actions or omissions inLevinson’s role as a lawyer, for which he received no benefit independent of his employmentwith SHB, admitted that Levinson acted within the course and scope of his employment at SHB.Denied that such acts benefitted SHB, in that SHB was defrauded by Shapiro, who controlled therepresentation, and by his employees.10. Admitted that the Supervising Attorney was employed by SHB in its Miami officeand that he provided supervision of the legal work from November 2005 to July 2008, when heleft SHB and joined another firm. Denied that such acts benefitted SHB, in that SHB was
Case 1:13-cv-20080-JEM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 3 of 39

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->