PERSHING v. KIEBACH (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

PERSHING, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thomas KIEBACH, represented by Executory of his estate, Thomas J. Moran; Marcel Dumestre; Margaret Dumestre; Mamie Helen Baumann, Through power of attorney Mamie C. Sanchez; Joseph Becker; et al, Defendants-Appellants
Thomas Kiebach, represented by Executory of his estate; Mamie Helen Baumann, Through power of attorney Mamie C. Sanchez; Joseph Becker; Ameritrust Corporation, on behalf of Benton Bruce Johnson Trust #1, Benton B. Johnson Test TRII, Martha JC Johnson Gen Skpg Tr.; Terene Beven; et al Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Pershing, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-30520

Decided: May 04, 2018

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Jeffrey J. Chapman, Danielle Kudla, McGuireWoods, L.L.P., New York, NY, Thomas Miles Farrell, Attorney, McGuireWoods, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Lana Davis Crump, Kean Miller, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, Amanda Howard Lowe, Kean Miller, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Phillip W. Preis, Esq., Charles Malcolm Gordon, Jr., Esq., Preis Gordon, A.P.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellants

A group of Louisiana retirees suffered losses at the hands of R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme. Those retirees later brought arbitration claims against Pershing, L.L.C. (a clearing broker for one of Stanford's business entities), alleging various sorts of wrongdoing. The arbitrators ruled in Pershing's favor, and both Pershing and the retirees filed lawsuits—Pershing to confirm the award and the retirees to vacate it.

Following consolidation, the district court denied the retirees’ motion for summary judgment and granted Pershing's motion for summary judgment, thereby confirming the arbitrators’ award. We agree with the district court's decision, and we do so for essentially the same reasons contained in the district court's order dated May 22, 2017.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law