Stillman v. Major U.S. Bank
Animations and Graphics Drive Major Bank’s Defense Against Lender Liability Suit
THE MATTER:
Bank Needs Strong Support to Fight Off Complex Ponzi Scheme Suit
In September 2004, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP was retained to defend one the nation’s top five banks (the Bank) against a suit brought by two prominent businessmen, in a complex case stemming from an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
The two businessmen and a previously convicted white collar criminal had been investors in a candy distribution company that raised millions from friends, family, and other locals, but was later discovered to be a sham and an elaborate front for a Ponzi scheme. While the white-collar criminal was convicted, the two businessmen maintained their lack of knowledge of the scheme, and subsequently sued the Bank—the original lending institution—for negligent misrepresentation: essentially, for “allowing” them to invest in the scheme that they accused the Bank of uncovering but not alerting them to.
THE CASESIGHT EFFECT:
Integrated Presentation Strategy Illuminates Scheme, Fraud
To mount an effective defense, Schnader needed to establish with the Pennsylvania jury the businessmen’s long investment history (both with and without the Bank’s advice), elaborate the circumstances of the Ponzi scheme, and clearly show the businessmen’s participation in the scheme. Schnader hired CaseSight to design an effective case presentation to simplify and clarify for the jury the complex nature of the businessmen’s relationship with the Bank, and to support testimony from financial experts and the named plaintiffs as well as the emotional recounts from bilked investors.
CaseSight designed a series of animated presentation segments and instructional graphics that demonstrated the coordinated and lurid nature of the scheme and explained the intricacies of check kiting. CaseSight’s innovative presentation also provided a thorough chronology of the businessmen’s investments, clearly showing the profits they made even after the Bank withdrew their funding. This illuminated the sophistication of the businessmen, thus undercutting their claim that they relied solely on the Bank for investment guidance.
THE OUTCOME:
Bank Successfully Defends Integrity and Brand
Throughout the two-week jury trial in the Chester County (Pennsylvania) Court of Common Pleas, Schnader Harrison attorneys used CaseSight’s animations and graphics to weave the evidence into a powerful, memorable argument that drove a jury verdict in favor of the Bank.
» Download a PDF of the Lender Liability case study
