Dividing up a shortfall from a Ponzi scheme was first posed before the United States Supreme Court in 1924. The infamous case of Cunningham v. Brown dealt with the original Ponzi scheme of Charles Ponzi and distributing remaining funds back to victims when his investment scheme was finally unravelled, but left victims with only a fraction of their original investments. Unraveling a Ponzi scheme to return a shortfall of money back among its victims is akin to untangling the noodles in a half-eaten bowl of spaghetti at a buffet and trying to determine who cooked each strand. Where multiple chefs (all using the same recipe) all had their spaghetti thrown in one giant pot, it would be a seemingly impossible task to untangle the half-eaten bowl to see which chefs’ spaghetti was still in that bowl.
Continue Reading How should a Court divide a shortfall of money among victims of a Ponzi Scheme

David Gadsden
David Gadsden has deep experience in fraud and financial crime matters. He is counsel on multijurisdictional fraud investigations, including related civil disputes and regulatory proceedings. David acted as counsel for a primary defendant in the Sino-Forest litigation, the largest securities fraud class action in Canada. He is known for his pragmatic advice on fraud prevention and investigations, and has extensive expertise in ‘Ponzi scheme’ litigation and asset recapture, including cross-border tracing, Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions. David has been recognized as a “Litigator to Watch” in Lexpert’s annual Guide to the Leading US/Canada Cross-border Litigation Lawyers in Canada and has been ranked in Legal 500 for dispute resolution.