Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey's still combing through Allen Stanford's financials to see who got some of that money made in the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme that landed the Texas financier in prison, where, one day, he'll face a federal trial (maybe). Janvey, who was appointed receiver, wants that money so he can pay back those investors bilked by Sir Allen, and yesterday in Dallas federal court he filed his latest recovery suit -- naming none other than pro golfer David Toms.
Says the suit, which follows on the other side, Stanford and Toms had a "sponsorship and endorsement relationship" for which the Louisiana resident was paid "at least $450,000.00 in 2007 and $455,087.44 in 2008" -- money Janvey says came from the sale of those phony certificates of deposit that landed Stanford behind bars. Writes Janvey, Toms "either performed no services for the CD Proceeds [he]
received; performed services that did not constitute reasonably equivalent value in exchange for
the CD Proceeds [he] received; or performed only services that were in furtherance of the Ponzi
scheme, which cannot be reasonably equivalent value as a matter of law."
To which Adam Young, Toms's business manager, says: Nonsense. Young, who received a handful of media calls while we were on the phone briefly this afternoon, tells Unfair Park today that Janvey's claims are "baseless and inaccurate -- every claim. They have to do some homework before they sue, don't they?"
He says Toms met Stanford in '06 and that theirs was a business relationship, as in: Toms would appear at golf tourneys, do some PR for Stanford and the firm, and get paid for doing so -- a standard endorsement deal.
"Nothing was ever off-shore," Young says from the David Toms Foundation office in Shreveport. "And the figures are baseless. ... How are we any different than the electric company? Why don't you sue the electric company because Stanford paid them too? David didn't get money from the offshore stuff. He didn't get his money back while someone else didn't. He was paid for his services, no different than the janitor got paid for cleaning the building."
Janvey v Toms
