Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

As required in a “Kids for Cash” litigation settlement, defendant Robert Powell’s attorney sent an email to the plaintiffs’ legal counsel at 3:59 p.m. on Jan. 20 estimating his net worth.

It took plaintiff attorney Sol H. Weiss of Philadelphia only six minutes to email a reply rejecting the estimate, which was blacked out in court documents.

“We disagree and elect to proceed with the independent accountant process. Thank you,” Weiss wrote.

Powell’s net worth will determine if more money will be paid to approximately 1,187 juveniles and 605 parents who sued him, the Powell Law Group PC and his company, Vision Holdings LLC — collectively known as the “Powell defendants” — and others in 2009 in connection with a judicial corruption scandal that made international headlines.

Because both sides disagree on the net worth, their settlement agreement says a determination will be made by an independent professional — that task has been assigned to Thomas Pratt, of Schneider Downs & Co. Inc. in Pittsburgh.

The plaintiffs released the emails and other details about the status of the net worth calculation in their recent court filings alleging the Powell defendants have “stonewalled” the release of funds to pay Pratt and financial information Pratt requested to calculate the net worth.

Under the settlement approved in federal court December 2015, the Powell defendants already paid $4.75 million and may be required to make a second payment up to $2.75 million based on Powell’s net worth in exchange for the release of all claims against them.

Pittsburgh attorney Stephen S. Stallings, who represents the Powell defendants, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

In an April 25 email attached to the recent filing, Stallings described the plan to seek court intervention as “frivolous” and said he will respond with a filing requesting sanctions on the plaintiffs for filing a “wholly unnecessary motion.” He wrote that his clients are working to compile the requested financial information, which he described as “far more voluminous and extensive than needed.”

“We are in the process of gathering the materials,” Stallings wrote, noting he is not aware of any mandatory deadline. “We continue to work to provide the appropriate information to Mr. Pratt.”

The new filing asks the court to order the Powell defendants to respond to Pratt’s information request, remove Jill Moran and name Stallings as the authorized representative permitted to transfer escrow funds to pay Pratt and require the Powell defendants to pay $2,400 in attorney fees related to the recent court filing.

“This court must punish the Powell defendants for their repeated delay tactics in failing to provide the requested information to the net worth professional within a reasonable amount of time,” the filing said.

Alleged delays

Pratt must determine Powell’s net worth excluding the value of his principal Florida residence or any personal property less than $5,000. An additional amount owed would be based on a formula of net worth ranges higher than $4.75 million.

If Powell provides documents the consultant “reasonably” requests, the settlement restricts disclosure of this information to the plaintiffs or anyone else without Powell’s permission and requires the documents be returned to Powell or destroyed after the final assessment.

A Hazleton area native, Powell served an 18-month prison sentence for failing to report a $2.8 million kickback scheme involving former county judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella and two juvenile detention centers Powell had co-owned, court records show. The two former judges are still serving federal prison sentences.

According to the recent court filings:

Pratt requested the first batch of financial information on Feb. 17, including copies of all documents that had been used to determine Powell’s net worth, income tax returns from 2011 to the present for all Powell defendants and copies of financial statements, loan applications and borrowing requests/agreements.

He also asked for all correspondence between Powell, Powell Law and Garretson Resolution Group about legal fees related to an environmental contamination settlement against the former Kerr-McGee Corp., which had operated a railroad tie manufacturing facility in Avoca linked to health problems. The Ohio-based Garretson handles the bankruptcy trust fund established to pay claimants.

Also sought were copies of all fee-sharing agreements that Powell and Powell Law approved with other lawyers or law firms to help handle this Avoca litigation.

In response to Pratt’s invitation, the plaintiffs’ legal counsel recommended other potential assets they believed should be analyzed on Feb. 21. Pratt requested the additional information Feb. 24, including copies of documents involving loans secured by Powell or Powell Law through Avoca litigation fees and the distribution of an approximately $100 million loan from Fortress Credit Corp. that was secured by Powell Law, Powell, Moran and others.

The request also included a list of all countries Powell has visited since 2011, monthly statements of Powell Law and Powell’s individual and joint bank accounts with a detailed accounting of all receipts and disbursements and vehicles owned or purchased by or for Powell.

The plaintiffs said travel is pertinent because Powell’s deposition testimony “suggests that he has already used a foreign country to hide business transactions,” pointing to Vision Holdings’ initial incorporation in the Cayman Islands.

Vehicle inquiries are warranted, the plaintiffs maintained, because the vehicles owned or purchased by or for Powell since 2011 have included a motor home, a Maserati Quattroporte sedan and Mercedes-Benz S550 sedan.

At Stallings’ request, Pratt provided a consolidated list of every item requested from Powell on March 15.

The plaintiffs characterized their requests as “simple and straightforward” and covering information the Powell defendants would have reviewed and considered before tabulating Powell’s net worth on Jan. 20. They questioned why the information can’t be produced on a “rolling basis.”

“Without court intervention, the Powell defendants will simply sit on their hands and make plaintiffs seek court orders to comply with their obligations to the plaintiffs,” the filing said.

Regarding the escrow agreement, the Powell defendants designated Moran as the lone representative permitted to act on their behalf to authorize the transfer of funds from their escrow account, the filing said.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys requested a signature from Moran authorizing a $10,000 transfer to pay Pratt on Feb. 22 and mentioned it again in a March 15 email, but the authorization was not provided until April 25, when the plaintiffs alerted the defendants of their plan to seek court intervention in the matter, the filing said.

Stallings had questioned their interpretation of the authorization process in an email.

Powell
https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/web1_powell-1.jpg.optimal.jpgPowell

By Jennifer Learn-Andes

[email protected]

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.