Brady v. Dome Insurance

21 V.I. 363, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12132
CourtDistrict Court, Virgin Islands
DecidedApril 17, 1985
DocketCivil No. 1984/111
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 V.I. 363 (Brady v. Dome Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brady v. Dome Insurance, 21 V.I. 363, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12132 (vid 1985).

Opinion

O’BRIEN, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the aftermath of the Dome Insurance Company, Inc., debacle in April 1984, Lt. Governor Julio A. Brady moved quickly to seek recovery of the monetary losses suffered by bringing this action [365]*365against members of the Bloom family and a corporation controlled by one of them. He alleged, in his capacity as Commissioner of Insurance and Receiver of Dome, that Leo Bloom, Shirley Bloom, Philip Bloom and International Financial Services, Ltd. had committed massive fraud against the people and government of the Virgin Islands. He contended that they had looted the insurance company by a variety of methods, leaving this domestic insurer an empty shell.

We agree, and a monetary judgment will enter as hereinafter indicated, in the total amount of $34,368,768.71.

I. FACTS

As every person resident in the Virgin Islands is aware, the Dome Insurance Company, Inc. (“Dome”) was placed in receivership in April 1984. Acting on the strength of an order obtained in this court, the receiver obtained the ouster of the principals of Dome and took over the company, including its records and files.

The records and documentation were a shambles. But after he sifted through them, and pieced them together with the assistance of an expert staff, the receiver discovered that there had been milking, bilking and looting of Dome’s assets to a degree unparalleled in the history of the Virgin Islands. Leo Bloom, his wife Shirley Bloom and their son, Philip Bloom, had joined to systematically empty the corporate treasury, leaving more than 5,000 policyholders and hundreds of creditors and claimants in the lurch.

The lead milkman in this effort was the patriarch, Leo Bloom. A convicted felon who somehow was able to obtain approval to create Dome in the Virgin Islands and sell insurance policies to unsuspecting local residents, he rigged the pump that sucked Dome dry. We will never know the entire story of how he did it, but that he did do it cannot be disputed. The record of this case is replete with proof that in Leo Bloom we are dealing with a milkman more expert than a Wisconsin dairy farmer.

We cite one example, a “smoking gun,” which proves that the looting of Dome was not the result of poor management, bad judgment or accident. And therein lies a tale.

When we ordered the principals of Dome out of the company offices, we also ordered them out of the homes that had been paid for by Dome funds. United States Marshals went with representatives of the receiver to secure these residences. At one of them, an alert (and curious) U.S. marshal noted, in a wastebasket midst the debris, [366]*366a written memorandum from Leo Bloom to his children dated August 12, 1981. At the top of the first page was this notation: “FOR YOUR EYES ONLY!”.

This memorandum gave the Bloom children a step by step procedure to follow in draining funds from the company, without the transfers showing on the Dome records. The device was simple: Leo Bloom incorporated a British Virgin Islands corporation, International Financial Services, Ltd. (“IFS”), and periodically transferred money from Dome to that corporation under the guise of payment of management fees. The money then went out of the IFS account to members of the Bloom family.

We consider this memorandum such a clear demonstration of the intent to commit fraud by the Bloom family against the assets of Dome, that we attach it hereto as an appendix to this opinion. That Leo Bloom and his family succeeded in this intent will be shown all too vividly in the discussion which follows.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

The violations of various Virgin Islands statutes involved in this case are so numerous that the receiver has his pick of applicable law, any several of which are sufficient to support his claim for damages. We provide an indication herein of a number of them.

Under Title 22, Virgin Islands Code, which regulates the insurance industry in the territory, these sections were violated:

Section 309, which prohibits turning over control of an insurer to outside management.
Section 312, which places strict restrictions against directors who mingle their self-interest financially with that of the corporation.
Section 1203, which prohibits the filing of false financial data with the Government of the Virgin Islands.
Section 120Ip, which prohibits false advertising in promoting insurance sales, and investments.
Section 1212, which prohibits acts of misconduct by officers of an insurance corporation.

Under Title 13, Virgin Islands Code, which regulates corporate activity in the Virgin Islands, these sections were violated:

Section 71, which governs loans to officers and directors of corporations.
Section 72, which makes officers and directors liable for false statements about the condition of business.
[367]*367Section 341, which prohibits the transfer of assets or the waste of assets by officers and directors.

At the evidentiary hearing held in this case, the receiver presented exhibits showing the false financial statements and the false advertising, and demonstrated the degree to which the Blooms had made Dome’s assets their private preserve.

III. DISCUSSION

After this adversary proceeding was filed by the receiver, the Blooms and IFS entered an answer to the complaint. But that ended their participation in the case. They refused to answer written interrogatories or produce documents on request. They refused to come to the Virgin Islands to be deposed. They conducted no discovery of their own. The Court entered repeated orders requiring compliance with the discovery rules. All were ignored. They refused to cooperate with their own attorneys, and two different sets of legal counsel were allowed to withdraw from their representation because of this lack of cooperation. The Court ordered the Blooms and IFS to enter the appearance of substitute counsel or their own pro se appearances within a stated period of time. This too was ignored. Finally, its patience exhausted, the Court ordered their answer stricken and a default entered.

A hearing on damages was held on March 27, 1985. The receiver presented proof of damages in eight separate categories, and exhibits as well as testimony were offered and received. We now take up each category separately, in the order in which the receiver presented his proof.

(1) Loans and Advances to Officers

The Blooms caused $126,048.08 to be advanced out of Dome funds to one of their own, Cynthia (Cindy) diSalvo, a daughter of Leo and Shirley Bloom. This money consisted of outright advances, “loans” and more than $20,000 paid for personal American Express credit purchases. Cynthia diSalvo was originally a party to a claim by the receiver, but this matter was settled, as to her. Thus, the receiver is now free to claim reimbursement against those who actually caused the money to be advanced, namely, di Salvo’s brother and her parents. They controlled Dome. They approved the transfers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Perez v. Government of the Virgin Islands.
847 F.2d 104 (Third Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 V.I. 363, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-dome-insurance-vid-1985.