Thursday, August 18, 2011
The back story to all of this is Rogers and Weyand began their partnership back in 2004. As they developed ideas together, Rogers began soliciting friends, family and acquaintances for money to back these schemes. Rogers also wrote the subscription agreements.
In late winter of 2006, the SEC contacted the company to advise a deposit was made into an individuals bank account who was part of an ongoing SEC investigating associated with the Travis Correll Ponzi scheme. That's when all hell broke lose.
Rogers was named in SEC vs. Global Finance and Investments, Inc--case No; 4:07cv346. Since that time, the lawsuits have been flying against Rogers and Weyand. However, this arbitration award levied a whopping $13,317,381 against Weyand, $311,329 against Theissen and $730,123 against Rogers.
However, the 5th circuit concludes that Weyand and Theissen cannot be held personally liable for the judgement and has overturned the Arbitration award.
As noted in the footnotes of page 4: The arbitration panel also held another individual defendant, Kelly G. Rogers, liable for a total of $730,123. Rogers is not a party to this appeal.
, On Wednesday August 17, 2011:
When litigants attempt to vacate arbitration awards, they usually don't get much help from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet the court recently ruled that two defendant corporate officers were not individually bound by arbitration agreements and overturned the awards against them.
The Aug. 4 decision in DK Joint Venture 1, et al. v. Richard W. Weyand, et al. is a departure for the appeals court, which has been hostile to arbitration vacatur attempts in the past. For example, in 2009's Citigroup Global Markets Inc. v. Bacon , the court ruled that arbitrators' manifest disregard of the law was not a ground for vacatur. And in 2007's Positive Software Solutions Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., et al., the 5th Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a three-judge panel decision that had affirmed a U.S. District Court ruling vacating an arbitration award. The en banc court found that the "mere appearance" of an arbitrator's bias was not a sufficient reason for vacatur.
According to the 5th Circuit's opinion, the background in Joint Venture 1 is as follows: The plaintiffs sued Weyand, Peter Thiessen and 15 corporations controlled by them in state court over a business dispute. Weyand is the chief executive officer and Thiessen is the chief financial officer of the defendant companies. The plaintiffs and the defendant corporations had entered into contracts called "subscription agreements" that contained arbitration agreements. The plaintiffs moved to compel all the defendants to arbitrate the state court litigation. [See the court's opinion.]
The defendants removed the case to a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. While Weyand and Thiessen protested that they had not agreed to arbitrate anything, the District Court ruled that all of the defendants including Weyand and Thiessen were bound by the arbitration agreements, the 5th Circuit wrote.
Specifically, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of Dallas ruled in a Jan. 29, 2008, order that because Weyand and Thiessen conducted the day-to-day business affairs of the corporate defendants, they met the definition of "affiliate" in the subscription agreements, even though they didn't sign them.
"Moreover, under Texas law, where contracting parties agree to arbitrate all disputes 'under or with respect to' a contract, they generally intend to include disputes about their agents' actions," Kinkeade wrote in the order.On April 1, 2009, a panel of three American Arbitration Association arbitrators awarded the plaintiffs $13,317,381 in damages against Weyand and $311,329 in damages against Thiessen, the 5th Circuit wrote. After the District Court confirmed the award, both men appealed.
In a May 24, 2010, brief to the 5th Circuit, the plaintiffs argued that the question of whether Weyand and Thiessen agreed to arbitration was delegated exclusively to the arbitration panel and "no court has the power to decide that issue." The plaintiffs also maintained that Weyand's and Thiessen's arguments were "without merit, without justification, and legally frivolous."
But the 5th Circuit disagreed. "Weyand and Thiessen, as CEO and CFO of the defendant corporations, were the corporations' agents. Under general principles of contract and agency law, the fact that the defendant corporations entered into the Subscription Agreements did not cause their agents, Weyand and Thiessen, who acted only as officers on behalf of the corporations, to be personally bound by those agreements," wrote 5th Circuit Judge James Dennis in an opinion joined by Judges Eugene Davis and Jacques Wiener. The panel reversed the trial court's order confirming the award and remanded it back for further hearings.
Donovan Campbell Jr., a partner in Dallas' Rader and Campbell who represents the plaintiffs in DK Joint Venture 1 , did not return a telephone call seeking comment.
Jeff Boggess, a Frisco solo who represents Weyand and Thiessen, is pleased with the decision — especially given the 5th Circuit's reputation for rejecting attempts to vacate arbitration awards.
"The 5th Circuit's decision is a beacon to wayward federal district judges and others who misinterpret Texas state decisions that decide which agents of contracting principals can be bound by the principals' arbitration agreements and under what circumstance," Boggess
Monday, August 15, 2011
According to the Collin County Website, the Trial of Kelly G Rogers has been rescheduled for December 12th of 2011. This information was obtained from the Collin County website. To get the information, simply click on the link and enter this case number to view a complete listing of the activity.
As soon as details are available, they will be passed along to our readers.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Five Reasons why Judge Suzanne Wooten SHOULD NOT GRANT another continuance to Kelly G. Rogers--Frisco Lawyer.
We're coming up on the moment of truth for Kelly G Rogers, Frisco Lawyer. Less that TWO weeks until he stands trial after he was indicted in July of 2009. Here we are--some TWO years later and we're still not assured of a trial.
While we fully expect Kelly Rogers--Dallas Lawyer--to request ANOTHER continuance, we at the Kelly Rogers Report have FIVE REASONS why we are begging Judge Suzanne Wooten to stand firm and move the trial forward as scheduled.
Eight Trial Dates Have Come and Gone: How much time does someone need to prepare for trial? Yet, the court has passed trial dates on EIGHT different occasions: October 29th, 20009, December 3rd, 2009, January 15th, 2010, March 19, 2010, May 25th, 2010, July 14th, 2010, November 3rd, 2010 and April 13th, 2011. Frankly, we're questioning the competency of the Collin County DA's office here. So let's keep this date...
Justice Needs to be Served: Many who read this blog each week have one thing on their mind--watching justice served to Kelly G Rogers--Frisco lawyer. Many have lost everything as a result of investing with this guy. He's as slippery as a bloated codfish and seems to lye his way out of everything. It's never his fault. Well, this time it is his fault and we need to see him served.
Kelly G Rogers Needs to do some Jail time: It's not clear what the sentence is for a first degree Felony for Misapplication of funds. However, it's important that Kelly G Rogers be humbled by serving time and being labeled a convicted felon. Maybe then he will be humbled...although it's doubtful. Until he serves jail time, he will continue to be a "Get-Rich-Quick-Schemer" that is always looking at how to make a fast buck--regardless of who he hurts or what rules he breaks. No remorse. No fair play. No team of advisers. Just complete and unadulterated arrogance.
Kelly G Rogers needs to be Disbarred: Lawyer. It's a title he flashes around like a "Get out of Jail Free" card. It gives him the self promotion and credibility he needs to scam people into thinking he's someone special. They're impressed, they invest, Rogers moves the money somewhere other than where it should be, the investor sues and Rogers represents himself at nominal costs. However, the investors are forced to pay an outside Lawyer $150-$250 per hour to find their money. If Rogers is convicted of a felony and disbarred, he'll then need to come up with his own money to defend all these lawsuits. It would level the playing field and safeguard the public by taking away his title and ability to bully his opponents and manipulate the legal system.
Need to put an End to this Case and Move on: We've all been watching the development of this of this case since 2009. However, many have been praying for justice since 2006 when Kelly Rogers Frisco Lawyer decided to raise money, start companies and invest in Ponzi schemes. Now we need to see this come to any end--by convicting the scoundrel--and allowing us to move on with our lives. It's been a sad, pathetic and very costly five years for many. While most have put all this in the past, some need to see this last chapter close. Like the Harry Potter story, a bitter sweet ending to journey that was exciting for a few days before smashing our dreams on the rocks of disappointment, despair, shame and anguish.
So Judge Suzanne Wooten, we beg that you REJECT ANY and ALL attempts by Kelly Rogers to gain a continuance on this trial.
How do we know he'll ask for an extension?
He's Kelly Rogers--Frisco Lawyer....so why would you expect anything different?