Attorney Michael Douglas Clark's Legal Cases

Securities and investment fraud

Quilling v. Schonsky

Sep 18, 2007

OUTCOME: Summary judgment against defendant affirmed.

In this case, we represented Mr. Michael J. Quilling, who had been appointed Receiver over several defendants by the district court pursuant to a request by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ... The SEC was pursuing an enforcement action against the defendant wrongdoers for their violations of federal securities laws (operating and/or participating in a Ponzi scheme). On behalf of the receivership estate and defrauded investors, we sued Mr. Schonsky for his receipt of funds illegally obtained through the Ponzi scheme, which we traced to him, and his refusal to return the money following a demand for him to do so. Transfers out of a Ponzi scheme are fraudulent as a matter of law. We obtained summary judgment in the district court on our Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act claim, and Mr. Schonsky appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, and we were able to secure a substantial recovery for the receivership estate.

Securities and investment fraud

Quilling v. Stark

Feb 07, 2007

OUTCOME: Summary judgment against Starks granted

This is another Ponzi scheme case. On behalf of Mr. Quilling, the court appointed receiver, we sued the Starks to recover funds they received in an illegal Ponzi scheme, which they refused to return f ... ollowing demand. We were successful and obtained a significant recovery for the receivership estate.

Litigation

Marketshare Telecom, L.L.C. v. Ericsson, Inc.

Aug 15, 2006

OUTCOME: Interlocutory appeal partially successful

We represented Marketshare Telecom, the (then) sole distributor for Ericsson PBX products in the U.S. and Canada. Marketshare had been successful in marketing and expanding the Ericsson PBX brand. Fo ... llowing a dispute between the parties, Ericsson terminated its contract with Marketshare, sued it and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against its former distributor from, among other things, doing business with the product end users ("VARs") that Marketshare had located and developed relationships with. The TRO contained numerous restrictions on Marketshare that we believed were unconstitutional restraints. On behalf of Marketshare, we countersued for breach of contract and other related claims and applied for our own injunctive relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied our injunction request and granted Ericsson's. We appealed. The Dallas Court of Appeals agreed with us that significant portions of the Ericsson injunction were unconstitutional, but unfortunately, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying our injunction and granting Ericsson's (as modified).

Litigation

S.E.C. v. Great White Marine & Recreation, Inc.

Oct 14, 2005

OUTCOME: Equitable subordination of creditor's claim

This was a case with a very complex fact pattern and history. The Fifth Circuit opinion does a better job explaining it than I would here. Allow me to recommend that any interested party review the o ... pinion and, if desired, e-mail any questions about the case to me. I will endeavor to respond as quickly as I can.

Michael Douglas Clark's Legal Cases (4)

Quilling v. Schonsky

Quilling v. Stark

Marketshare Telecom, L.L.C. v. Ericsson, Inc.

S.E.C. v. Great White Marine & Recreation, Inc.