Dear Fellow beneficial interest holders of STS,
Below are both a summary from our attorney and a link to the full petition that was filed in San Antonio court last month. The action was not taken lightly and every possible consideration was taken before the petition was filed. We needed to do what is right. We welcome support from other beneficiaries with our action and would encourage all to contact David Deary whose contact information is listed in the summary.
Thank you.
SUMMARY:
On March 22, 2011, Emilie Blaze filed a petition in state court in San Antonio asserting causes of action against JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA and Gary Aymes. Emilie is a beneficiary of the South Texas Syndicate Trust. JPMC is the current Trustee of the Trust. Aymes is a Fiduciary Officer of JPMC who has participated in the management of the Trust.
In the petition, Emilie is requesting the removal of JPMC and Aymes as Trustee of the Trust and requesting damages for breaches of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentations by JPMC and Aymes in their conduct in managing the Trust. Additionally, Emilie is requesting that the Court order that JPMC and Aymes be prohibited from using Trust assets to defend themselves, that JPMC and Aymes provide the beneficiaries with an accounting of the activities of the Trust, and that the fees charged by JPMC as Trustee be restricted to those fees allowed by the 1951 Decree forming the Trust.
Emilie is seeking damages for, among other things, excessive trustee fees, which have exceeded $1.6 million in recent years alone, below-market delay rental agreements and bonuses on leases, and damages for failure to properly manage the mineral rights over the years. These damages may very well include additional components as the discovery in the case proceeds.
Under Texas law, the current beneficiaries of the Trust are necessary parties to the action.
A link to the Petition is below for your information. If you have any questions, you may contact Emilie’s counsel listed on page 14 of the Petition:
David R. Deary
Jim Flegle
Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, LLP
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 572-1700
DavidD@LFDlaw.com
JimF@LFDlaw.com
Link to full petition:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52452754/Blaze-v-JPMC-filed-3-22-11-1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
John,
ReplyDeleteCan we get Emilie's phone number so we can ask her questions?
We would much prefer to have people contact David Deary or Jim Flegle directly. They are experienced professionals and will be able to explain in greater detail and completeness what JPMC has been doing that violates Texas law and has had a very adverse affect on STS. If others can not see how JPMC has been mismanaging this account, I will not be able to calm their fears as to why we have taken this action. For the people who agree that JPMC should be removed, they will appreciate what David Deary has to say.
ReplyDeleteI left a message for Mr. Deary to call me back last Thursday. I would think you and Emilie should be able to explain your reasonings without bothering the lawyer, especially as he is not returning phone calls.
ReplyDeleteI have talked with a number of beneficiaries that want to talk with the attorney and with Emilie. She has made us all "necessary parties to the action" and they have questions for her.
ReplyDeleteI do not want to be an intermediate.
I talked with Emilie and she is not open to having beneficiaries speak with her. She would prefer to have them speak with her attorney.
ReplyDeleteIt appeared David Deary is not returning calls. Can't imagine he has time to talk to scores of beneficiaries.
ReplyDeleteI really wish Emilie would have tried to work with the other beneificiaries and not surprised everyone with this suit, especially when we were building consensus within the families of the beneficiaries.
I hope she and John have thought through all of the possibilities. This could become very unpleasant.
There are a number of issues I have with the filing of this lawsuit, the one is that JPMC will go into a defensive mode and we have little hope of progress with them going forward. What if, after all is said and done, JPMC is cleared of these accusations, that the court says they have managed the trusteeship adequately? This would only solidify their position and decrease the likelyhood of them working with us, not to mention the cost of the defense.
ReplyDeleteNot all of the possible results of this equation are roses and dollars in your pockets, there are significant downside risks to this course of action.
I have recently been brought up to speed as to what is going on. I find it hard to believe that one beneficiary can unilaterally spend the money of the beneficiaries without some type of approval. On top oe that they are unwilling to discuss the reasons for the suit personally. While the suit may have justification, to do so without discussion seems to put the rest of us in a bad position. I would strongly urge that a "timeout" be declared so that we can discuss the repercussions to the asset. My sister and I are small share owners, but from what I see and read, the asset could have some very large upside and needs much more attention. The biggest advantage being that a large percentage of the asset is still in the ground and should not be compromised by lawsuits that pertain to the past unless it can be definitively determined what that value is to be. That value may not enough to given the future return
ReplyDeleteHopefully we can find a way to work together as a unified group.