Lawsuits Relating to the ABC Viaticals Receivership

中文 - Chinese

Cause No. 3:07-CV-1153

ABC's investors were told they invested in a bonded life insurance policy that was guaranteed to pay by a certain date. Defendant Erwin & Johnson is the law firm who acted as ABC's escrow agent and trustee. Among other things, it was supposed to oversee the escrow accounts to pay premiums for each policy. Unfortunately, Defendant Erwin & Johnson and its principal agent, Defendant Christopher R. Erwin, did not create separate accounts for each policy or set aside enough to pay premiums until the bonds were supposed to mature. If they had, those accounts would have nearly $20 million in them on the date the Receiver was appointed. The Receiver has sued Defendants to recover those damages.

On June 28, 2007, the Receiver filed his Original Complaint to recover nearly $24 million in damages from the Defendants.

On September 5, 2007, the Defendants filed a Waiver of Service giving them until September 24, 2007, to answer or file a motion in this case.

On September 24, 2007, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C). On October 25, 2007, the Receiver filed his Response Brief (Exhibit A). On November 9, 2007, the Defendants filed their Reply Brief (Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E). The Court entered its Order denying the Defendants' motion on February 25, 2008.

On September 24, 2007, the Defendant Christopher Erwin filed his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C). On October 25, 2007, the Receiver filed his Response Brief. On November 9, 2007, Erwin filed his Reply Brief. On February 20, 2008, the Court entered its Order denying Defendant's motion. Erwin filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 10, 2008. The Receiver filed his Response on March 31, 2008. Erwin filed his Reply on April 15, 2008. On June 23, 2008, the Court entered its Order denying Erwin's motion and ruling that he was subject the court's jurisdiction.

On September 24, 2007, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. On October 25, 2007, the Receiver filed his Response Brief. On November 9, 2007, Defendants filed their Reply Brief. The Court entered its Order denying the Defendants' motion on February 25, 2008. Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Exhibit A) on March 10, 2008. The Receiver filed his Response on March 31, 2008. Defendants filed a Reply on April 15, 2008. On June 23, 2008, the Court entered its Order affirming the Receiver's standing to sue Defendants.

On March 10, 2008, Erwin filed his Original Answer, Counterclaims & Cross-Complaint. On March 31, 2008, the Receiver filed his Original Reply to Erwin's Counterclaims.

On March 10, 2008, Erwin & Johnson, LLP filed its Original Answer, Counterclaims & Cross-Complaint. On March 31, 2008, the Receiver filed his Original Reply to Erwin & Johnson's Counterclaims.

In their Cross-Complaints, the Defendants stated claims against ABC's former trustee and escrow agent, Mills, Potoczak & Co. Mills, Potoczak & Co. filed its Original Answer to the claims stated by Erwin & Johnson and its Original Answer to the claims stated by Chris Erwin.

On May 13, 2008, the Receiver filed his Amended Complaint against Erwin & Johnson and Chris Erwin that, among other things, stated his damages against them at nearly $20 million. On May 28, 2008, Erwin & Johnson filed its Amended Answer, Counterclaims, and Third-Pary Complaint and Chris Erwin filed his Amended Answer, Counterclaims, and Third-Pary Complaint. On June 13, 2008, the Receiver filed his Reply to Erwin's Amended Counterclaims and his Reply to Erwin & Johnson's Amended Counterclaims.

On June 11, 2008, Mills, Potoczak & Co. filed its Amended Answer to the claims stated by Erwin & Johnson and its Amended Answer to the claims stated by Chris Erwin.

Erwin & Johnson's Attempts to Sue Law Firm Located in the United Kingdom

On May 5, 2009, Erwin & Johnson filed a Motion for Leave (Brief - Appendix) asking the Court for permission to sue a law firm in the United Kingdom called DMH Stallard and a former attorney named Christopher Stenning. The Receiver filed his Response on May 22, 2009, explaining that the law firm has nothing to do with the Defendants' failure to fund the premium escrow accounts and adding it would only delay these proceedings. Defendants filed their Reply (Supplemental Appendix) on May 27, 2009. On October 16, 2009, the Court entered its Order adding the law firm as a third-party defendant.

On January 20, 2010, DMH Stallard and Stenning filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the U.D. District Court in Texas does not have jurisdiction over them. The Receiver filed his Response supporting DMH Stallard's and Stenning's motion. Erwin & Johnson filed a Response arguing that the Court does have jurisdiction. DMH Stallard filed its Reply. On June 30, 2010, the Court entered an Order finding it does have jurisdiction over DMH Stallard and Stenning based on the business they conducted in Texas with ABC Viaticals.

On July 20, 2010, DMH Stallard and Stenning filed another Motion to Dismiss arguing that Erwin & Johnson has failed to state a valid claim against them. Erwin & Johnson filed a Response and DMH Stallard and Stenning filed their Reply.

Erwin & Johnson's Attempts to Sue Jason Sun

On August 4, 2009, Erwin & Johnson filed its Motion for Leave and Brief to sue a Taiwanese sales agent named Jason Sun. The Receiver filed his Response opposing the motion because Defendants' claims against Jason Sun are irrelevant and have nothing to do with a claim or defense at issue in this case. Erwin & Johnson filed its Reply. On December 11, 2009, the Court entered its Order refusing to add Jason Sun as a party to this lawsuit.

The following documents require Adobe Reader (click here to download).