RMIJudge Calls Out Mining Magnate’s Legal Group As ‘Sneaky At Worst’
A Manhattan judge on Wednesday brushed aside an effort by billionaire mining magnate Individual retirement account Rennert to avoid repaying at least $118 million to his defunct previous magnesium manufacturer.
Judge Alison Nathan called the attempt by Rennert’s legal team “inefficient at finest” and “devious at worst.”
A federal court jury on Feb. 27 found the 80-year old executive accountable for robbery his Magnesium Corp. of America by taking $118 million in dividends as it teetered on the edge of insolvency.
Much of that money went to getting prime Hamptons realrealty and helping to fund his 62,000 square-foot, 29-bedroom, 39-bath manse in Sagaponack, LI, attorneys for the shuttered MagCorp told the jury throughout the one-month trial.
The financial obligation incurred by MagCorp to fund the dividends later caused its 2001 bankruptcy.
Rennert claims the bankruptcy was triggered by a financial downturn.
His legal representatives moved immediately after the jury was dismissed for mistrial, which Judge Nathan denied. Rennert had numerous chances to challenge the jury guidelines however didn’t do so, the judge ruled in her order.
The jury discovered Rennert and Renco, his running business, were accountable under New York law however not under US law.
Rennert’s attorneys had assaulted the jury verdict as irregular based upon the different findings. The judge, though, said such a possible outcome was clear from her guidelines.
The judge is anticipated to rule in the next few weeks on how much interest Rennert will certainly face– a ruling that could bring damages to as much as $700 million.
Nicholas Kajon, an attorney for MagCorp trustee Lee Buchwald, stated he was “pleased that Judge Nathan put a stop to Rennert’s blatant attempt to weaken the verdict the jury worked so tough to achieve … we anticipate entry and enforcement of our $118 million judgment.”
“The jury unanimously figured out that MagCorp was solvent and that Mr. Rennert acted in excellent faith when the dividends were paid,” Renco said in a statement. “That’s the heart of the case and we stay positive that the basis for our post-trial motions to leave the decision and, if essential, an appeal, are strong and clear cut because the finding of liability is … inconsistent with the jury’s own ruling on the facts.”
Comments are currently closed.