X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
LOS ANGELES � Former Milberg, Weiss & Bershad partner Steven Schulman expanded his motion to dismiss some of the criminal charges against him with additional court filings last week. Schulman and another Milberg Weiss partner, David Bershad, were indicted in Los Angeles last year on charges they made $216 million in attorney fees by paying kickbacks to lead plaintiffs. Last week, Melvyn Weiss, senior and founding partner of Milberg Weiss, and William Lerach, a former partner at the firm, reportedly rejected a plea deal that would have required prison sentences of up to four years. Neither has been charged. Lerach acknowledged earlier this month that he would resign from his San Diego-based firm, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins. In recent weeks, Bershad and Milberg Weiss, which also was indicted, have been in talks with federal prosecutors over a plea deal. Schulman’s most recent filing seeks to dismiss counts of “honest services fraud” relating to four federal cases in which he is linked in the indictment. In April, Schulman filed a similar motion to dismiss allegations of “honest services fraud” relating to securities cases in Delaware in which Howard Vogel, or one of his family members, served as a lead plaintiff. Vogel pleaded guilty last year to making false statements in court related to the alleged kickbacks. “As with the Delaware ‘transactional’ cases, the indictment nowhere alleges that any share of Milberg Weiss’ fees allegedly paid to named plaintiffs in the federal cases caused any actual divergence of interests with, or harm to, the class,” the motion states. Schulman also argues that the government’s criminalization of “honest services” is vague and the “very definition of arbitrary and chilling enforcement of the laws.” In previous motions, Schulman is seeking to dismiss some mail fraud counts and other claims that he breached his fiduciary duty to absent class members. He also argues that the government’s claims do not violate New York’s commercial bribery statutes and seeks to strike “inflammatory and prejudicial” portions of the indictment.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.