Back
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Burton W. Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd.
Receiver's standing to sue alleged accomplices in a Ponzi scheme for fraudulent-transfer and tort claims
Headnote:
Ponzi Scheme - Receiver's Standing to Sue Accomplices - Fraudulent-Transfer and Tort Claims
Fact of the Case:
The receiver appointed after a Ponzi scheme collapse sued alleged accomplices for fraudulent-transfer and common-law tort claims. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling that the receiver lacked standing to sue and that one defendant was immune under the Communications Decency Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the fraudulent-transfer claims for lack of standing and in dismissing the tort claims with prejudice. It reversed the dismissal of the fraudulent-transfer claims, vacated the dismissal with prejudice of the tort claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues: Receiver's standing to maintain fraudulent-transfer and tort claims, immunity under the Communications Decency Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the receiver had standing to maintain the fraudulent-transfer claims but lacked standing to maintain the tort claims. It also determined that one defendant was not immune under the Communications Decency Act.
Final Decision: The dismissal of the fraudulent-transfer claims was reversed, the dismissal with prejudice of the tort claims was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
USCA11 Case: 22-13658 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 1 of 26 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-13658 ____________________ BURTON W. WIAND, not individually but solely in his capacity as Receiver for Oasis International Group, Limited, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ATC BROKERS LTD., DAVID MANOUKIAN, SPOTEX LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-13658 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 2 of 26 2 Opinion of the Court 22-13658 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01317-MSS-AAS ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether a receiver appointed in the wake of a Ponzi scheme has standing to maintain fraudulent- transfer and common-law tort claims against alleged accomplices. Oasis was a $78 million Ponzi scheme masquerading as a foreign currency investment fund. After the scheme collapsed, the district court appointed Burton Wiand as equity receiver to recover assets for the benefit of the investor-victims. Wiand sued ATC Brokers, Ltd., where Oasis held accounts to trade in currency markets; Da- vid Manoukian, the owner of ATC Brokers; and Spotex LLC, which provided the software Oasis used to show investors fraudu- lent returns. Wiand alleged common-law tort claims against the defendants and fraudulent-transfer claims against ATC Brokers only. The district court dismissed Wiand’s complaint with preju- dice. It ruled that Wiand lacked standing to sue ATC Brokers and Manoukian and that Spotex was immune under the Communica- tions Decency Act. We conclude that the district court erred in dis- missing the fraudulent-transfer claims for lack of standing. And alt- hough the district court correctly concluded that Wiand lacked standing to maintain the tort claims, it erred in dismissing those USCA11 Case: 22-13658 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 3 of 26 22-13658 Opinion of the Court 3 claims with prejudice and should not have reached the issue of stat- utory immunity. We reverse the dismissal of the fraudulent-trans- fer claims and remand for further proceedings, and we vacate the dismissal with prejudice of the tort claims and remand with instruc- tions to dismiss without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND This appeal is ancillary to a series of civil and criminal actions brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Department of Justice against the Oasis Ponzi scheme. Oasis held itself out as a foreign-exchange or “forex” investment company that profited from trading currency futures. It raised $78 million from over 700 investors and, like all Ponzis, failed to invest those funds as promised. Oasis concealed $20 million of trading losses, misappropriated $10 million to pay its principals, and paid out $28 m
