- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
January 25, 2023Roman Silberfeld Named to Daily Journal’s Inaugural Leading Commercial Litigators List
-
January 25, 2023Ron Schutz, Tara Sutton Named to Lawdragon “500 Leading Lawyers In America” List
-
January 17, 2023Christopher Larus, Robins Kaplan Shortlisted for Benchmark Litigation 2023 Awards
-
March 3, 2023LGBTQ Legal Services: Transgender Name Change Clinic
-
April 3, 2023Conference of Tribal Lending Commissioners
-
January 24, 2023Briefly: Column to Continue With New Authors at Helm
-
January 2023Greta Wiessner: Making the Civil Rights Movement a Modern-Day Reality
-
January 2023Rayna Kessler Appointed Liaison Counsel in Exactech Multi-District Litigation
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Read our attorneys' take on the latest news and trends in the legal and business industries.
Obtained Over $563 Million Jury Verdict Against BMO Harris Bank in Petters Fraud Litigation Related to One of the Biggest Ponzi Schemes in U.S. History
Largest Jury Verdict in Minnesota History
November 8, 2022
Fourteen years after FBI agents raided the headquarters of Petters Company Inc. (PCI) and put an end to one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, a federal jury in St. Paul found BMO Harris Bank N.A. liable for aiding and abetting the conspirators’ breach of fiduciary duty. The jury awarded Plaintiff Douglas Kelley, as trustee for the BMO Litigation Trust, $484 million in compensatory damages and assessed an additional $79.5 million in punitive damages against BMO Harris for its role in facilitating the scheme. The total represents the largest ever jury award in a Minnesota civil case and could grow to more than $1 billion when prejudgment interest is assessed.
BMO Harris acquired Milwaukee-based M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank (M&I) in 2011. From 2002 to 2008, Tom Petters and his co-conspirators moved some $37 billion in and out of a small business banking account at M&I. Despite the massive flow of money through the account and more than three years of monthly anti-money laundering alerts triggering, M&I took no action to shut down the account or to label its activity suspicious.
Kelley’s case against BMO Harris began as an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court in 2012. Kelley asserted four claims against the bank: violation of the Minnesota Uniform Fiduciaries Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting fraud, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. After years of litigation in which Kelley’s claims survived motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and BMO Harris was sanctioned for the destruction of e-mail evidence relating to M&I’s dealings with PCI, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Kathleen Sanberg transferred the matter to the federal district court for the District of Minnesota in summer 2019. There, Judge Wilhelmina Wright denied a BMO Harris appeal of the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment ruling and set the case for trial beginning on October 12, 2022.
Over the course of the trial, jurors heard testimony from more than 20 witnesses, including current and former bank employees and four expert witnesses. Led by partner Michael Collyard, the Robins Kaplan trial team highlighted the disparity between the bank’s anti-money laundering training and policies and the actions of its bankers and analysts, who Kelley alleged turned a blind eye to the fraud over the course of nearly seven years.
Though bank witnesses denied any wrongdoing, Collyard urged jurors in his closing argument to weigh the credibility of their testimony in light of the evidence showing billions of dollars of activity in the PCI account that made no sense for PCI’s purported business model of buying consumer electronics from wholesalers and reselling to big box retailers. After deliberating over the course of three days, the eleven-member jury agreed that the bank’s story didn’t hold up and awarded Kelley the largest single verdict or settlement arising from the Petters scheme.
BMO Harris acquired Milwaukee-based M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank (M&I) in 2011. From 2002 to 2008, Tom Petters and his co-conspirators moved some $37 billion in and out of a small business banking account at M&I. Despite the massive flow of money through the account and more than three years of monthly anti-money laundering alerts triggering, M&I took no action to shut down the account or to label its activity suspicious.
Kelley’s case against BMO Harris began as an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court in 2012. Kelley asserted four claims against the bank: violation of the Minnesota Uniform Fiduciaries Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting fraud, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. After years of litigation in which Kelley’s claims survived motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and BMO Harris was sanctioned for the destruction of e-mail evidence relating to M&I’s dealings with PCI, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Kathleen Sanberg transferred the matter to the federal district court for the District of Minnesota in summer 2019. There, Judge Wilhelmina Wright denied a BMO Harris appeal of the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment ruling and set the case for trial beginning on October 12, 2022.
Over the course of the trial, jurors heard testimony from more than 20 witnesses, including current and former bank employees and four expert witnesses. Led by partner Michael Collyard, the Robins Kaplan trial team highlighted the disparity between the bank’s anti-money laundering training and policies and the actions of its bankers and analysts, who Kelley alleged turned a blind eye to the fraud over the course of nearly seven years.
Though bank witnesses denied any wrongdoing, Collyard urged jurors in his closing argument to weigh the credibility of their testimony in light of the evidence showing billions of dollars of activity in the PCI account that made no sense for PCI’s purported business model of buying consumer electronics from wholesalers and reselling to big box retailers. After deliberating over the course of three days, the eleven-member jury agreed that the bank’s story didn’t hold up and awarded Kelley the largest single verdict or settlement arising from the Petters scheme.
Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.
Similar Results
Back to Top
Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.