WATCH
WATCH
After reading the suit, below, please review these related sites...
DEA Watch - daily reports
DEA Watch - original report
DEA Watch - Main Page
FTS Wire - Main Page
WATCH
F. LEE BAILEY, Plaintiff.
V.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
COMPLAINT Plaintiff, F. Lee Bailey ("Bailey"), for his complaint against defendant alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &1491 The plaintiff brings this action to enforce an oral contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, The United States.
2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00.
THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, F. Lee Bailey, is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Further, Bailey is an attorney licensed in the State of Florida and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with his principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida and a central office in Boston, Massachusetts.
4. Defendant is the United States of America.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. On or about the last week of March, 1994, Bailey was retained to represent Claude Luis Duboc in the matter of United States of America v. Claude Luis Duboc, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division, Case No. GCR-01009-MMP, hereinafter referred to as the "Duboc case".
6. Mr. Duboc was to stand trial on a multiple-count indictment charging him with various offenses against the United States, including international drug importation, money laundering and criminal forfeiture.
7. Shortly after Bailey began representing Mr. Duboc, Bailey informed the federal prosecutors that Mr. Duboc was willing to negotiate a plea of guilty.
8. One of the issues that was negotiated between Bailey and members of the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Florida, who were authorized to represent the United States, the defendant in the instant action, were the matters of Bailey's fees and funding of expenses associated with Bailey's representation of Mr. Duboc, and Bailey's performance of various tasks associated with the maintenance, liquidation and repatriation of vast quantities of property to be transferred from Duboc to the defendant United States.
9. In light of the criminal forfeiture pending against Mr. Duboc, Bailey wanted to be assured that his fees, which had been set at $US 3,000,000.00, an amount that was agreeable to the government's counsel, would be secured by non-forfeitable assets.
10. Bailey made the government aware of his concern that he be protected on the matter of his fees.
11. On or about April 25, 1994, a meeting was held between Bailey, Mr. Duboc, Special Agent Carl Lilley of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, and various Assistant United States Attorneys from time to time.
12. At said meeting, a list of Mr. Duboc's assets was prepared.
13. On or about April 26, 1994, a private meeting was conducted between Bailey and Assistant United States Attorney Gregory R. Miller (AUSA Miller).
14. At said meeting, AUSA Miller assured Bailey that Bailey would be protected with respect to his requested fees and expenses in the Duboc case.
15. AUSA Miller, using the previously prepared list of Mr. Duboc's assets, offered to unconditionally transfer to Bailey a cash account maintained at UBS in Luxembourg which contained approximately 3 1/2 million dollars ($U.S. 3,500,000.00) from which Bailey's fees and expenses would be paid.
16. In order to accomplish this objective, AUSA Miller, on behalf of the United States, agreed to exempt said account from any forfeiture claim by the government.
17. Mr. Miller acknowledged that the money would be transferred to Credit Suisse in Geneva, and that such a transfer would be illegal under Swiss law unless the property so transferred was not forfeitable to the United States.
18. During the course of the April 26th meeting, Special Agent Lilley recommended that, instead of transferring the cash account to Bailey, it would be more advantageous to all parties to transfer to Bailey, six hundred and two thousand (602,000) shares of Biochem Pharma, a Canadian pharmaceutical company publicly traded on the NASDAQ Exchange.
19. Lilley explained that by law the United States government could not hold the stock and would have to sell it in one block immediately thus jeopardizing its value.
20. As with the cash account, the transfer of these shares would have been illegal under Swiss law without the understanding that the property was not forfeitable to the United States.
21. On or about April 26, 1994, Biochem Pharma was trading at approximately nine dollars ($US 9.00) per share.
22. On or about April 26, 1994, at the behest of AUSA Miller, a private conference was had between Bailey and AUSA Miller.
23. During said conference, AUSA Miller, acting on behalf of the United States, told Bailey that he would have the right to sell any and all shares of Biochem Pharma at any time and in any fashion, Bailey chose.
24. AUSA Miller further informed Bailey that if the Biochem Pharma stock were to decrease in value there would be no other source from which Bailey could recover his fees and expenses.
25. AUSA Miller explained to Bailey that in effect the United States government would be transferring to Bailey approximately 6 million dollars ($US 6,000,000.00) and that any fluctuation in the stock's value was Bailey's risk and responsibility.
26. Bailey agreed to accept the said stock as a cash equivalent for its then value of approximately $US 6,000,000.00, as the source of various fees and expenses in connection with the Duboc case, in lieu of the cash previously offered or other form of payment.
27. The only condition made part of this agreement by the parties thereto was that the United States District Court would ultimately be required to approve legal fees deriving from Bailey's representation of Mr. Duboc.
28. Under this agreement, any increase in the value of the stock was clearly not subject to consideration by the Court in approving legal fees.
29. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Duboc, with the assistance of Special Agent Lilley, prepared and executed a letter directing the 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma be transferred to an account maintained by Bailey at Credit Suisse in Geneva, Switzerland.
30. The transfer was accomplished by agents of the United States.
31. On or about May 9, 1994, all 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma were transferred to Bailey's account at Credit Suisse in Geneva, Switzerland.
32. All 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma wore transferred to Bailey's account unconditionally and in fee simple.
33. No document limiting Bailey's ownership was ever prepared, discussed or contemplated.
34. The United States had no further involvement with respect the Biochem Pharma stock until January, 1996.
35. In or about December, 1995, or early January, 1996, the government learned that the share price of Bicohem Pharma had risen dramatically.
36. On or about January 22, 1996, the United States of America filed a motion entitled "Emergency Motion to Surrender Property", to wit: the 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma stock.
37. In or about February, 1996, the United States of America, through its agents, filed a Motion and Memorandum for Issuance of an Order of Forfeiture seeking forfeiture of the 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma stock.
38. On or about February 29, 1996, Bailey was incarcerated as result of an Order of civil contempt entered by Chief Judge Paul of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
39. On or about March 22, 1996, the District Court conducted a hearing on the government's forfeiture motion and entered a Stipulated Order of Forfeiture forfeiting all 602,000 shares of Biochem stock to the United States of America.
40. At the time that the shares of Biochem Pharma were forfeited the value of the stock then remaining was in excess of 16 million dollars ($US 16,000,000.00)
41. To date, Bailey has received no compensation for his representation of Mr. Duboc in the Duboc case; including his efforts regarding the maintenance, liquidation and repatriation of various foreign properties; and he has not received a sum equal to the increased value of the 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma transferred to Bailey in fee simple.
COUNT I. BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT
42. Bailey repeats and reavers the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 41 of the Complaint as is fully set forth herein.
43. The United States of America, through its agents and/or employees, breached its express contract with Bailey by taking action to deprive Bailey of his fees and by depriving Bailey of the increase in value of the 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma stock from its value when the United States agreed to and orchestrated the transfer of said stock to Bailey in fee simple (approximately $US 6,000,000.00) to its value on the date of forfeiture (approximately $US 16,000,000.00.
44. As a result of the breach by the United States of America,Bailey has been damaged financially, including but not limited to, the loss of fees and expenses incurred during Bailey's representation of Mr. Duboc, including the loss of fees and expenses incurred in the maintenance, liquidation and repatriation of the foreign properties to the United States and the loss of the increased value in the stock from the date same was transferred to Bailey in fee simple.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, F. Lee Bailey, demands judgment against the defendant' United States of America, for:
1. an amount adequate to compensate him for his losses together with interest and costs;
2. and any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT
45. Bailey repeats and reavers the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 44 of the Complaint as is fully set forth herein.
46. The defendant, United States of America, through its agents and/or employees, acted in such a manner as to manifest an intention to be contractually bound by their conduct.
47. The course of dealings between the defendant, United States of America, and Bailey were such that a reasonable person in Bailey's position would have believed that the defendant agreed to be bound in return for Bailey's performance.
48. As a result of the breach by the United States of America, Bailey has been damaged financially, including but not limited to, the loss of fees incurred during Bailey's representation of Mr. Duboc, including the loss of fees and expenses incurred in the maintenance, liquidation and repatriation of the foreign properties to the United States and the loss of the increased Value in the stock from the date same was transferred to Bailey in fee simple.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, F. Lee Bailey, demands judgment against the defendant, United States of America, for:
1. an amount adequate to compensate him for his losses together with interest and costs;
2. and any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III - QUANTUM MERUIT
49. Bailey repeats and reavers the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48 of the Complaint as is fully set forth herein.
50, Bailey, in good faith, performed services for the benefit and/or at the request of the defendant, United States of America.
51. To date, Bailey has received no compensation for the reasonable value of said services.
52. As a result of the breach by the United States of America, Bailey has been damaged financially, including but not limited to, the loss of fees incurred during Bailey's representation of Mr. Duboc, including the loss of fees and expenses incurred in the maintenance, liquidation & repatriation of the foreign properties to the United States and the loss of the increased value in the stock from the date same was transferred to Bailey in fee supple.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff F. Lee Bailey, demands judgment against the defendant, United States of America, for:
1. an amount adequate to compensate him for his losses together with interest and costs;
2. and any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Toni Marie Kennedy, Esquire.
Bailey, Fishman, Freeman & Ferrin
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Dated 10-21, 1996
WATCH
Phill Coleman, EditorIf your are using Netscape or a compatible web browser, click thebutton to return to the previous screen, orclick here.