Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Patton Boggs legal opinion explanation Steven Canady

64 views

Published on

Notice from Steven's legal team explaining the charges against Steven and deficiencies in the case

Published in: Law
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Patton Boggs legal opinion explanation Steven Canady

  1. 1. 44 Offices in 21 Countries Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP is part of the international legal practice Squire Patton Boggs, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit squirepattonboggs.com for more information. Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 O 202-457-6000 F 202-457-6315 squirepattonboggs.com T. Michael Guiffré T 202-457-6441 michael.guiffre@squirepb.com August 25, 2014 To Whom It May Concern, I am reporting on the status of a case filed against Steven Canady in the Superior Court of Carroll County, Georgia. The local DA filed a case claiming theft against three county citizens in 2010. The case, which in essence involved a funding dispute typically addressed in civil litigation, was successfully resolved in April 2014. The allegations involved claims that certain former employees of Alliance Capital Fund made false promises in connection with three financing transactions. The financing transactions were dependent on Alliance receiving funding from a distinct third-party company named JP Global Investments Outreach, LLC. JP Global fraudulently induced Alliance to pay a funding fee and then failed to fund the transaction or return the funding fee. As a result, Alliance was unable to complete the three related financing transactions in Carroll County. Allegations such as these are typically resolved in civil courts. To pressure a settlement, however, the borrowers alleged that they were defrauded. The local DA provided support by filing the charges in January 2013, but then did nothing for over a year. Among the many deficiencies in the case, the evidence showed that Mr. Canady had little to no contact with any of the alleged victims and did not authorize anyone acting on behalf of the company to make any misrepresentations. Notably, the former employees in question were in direct contact with the alleged victims and stood to receive additional compensation based on the transactions, but the DA did not bring any charges against the employees, who were also residents of Carroll County. Given the fact that Mr. Canady was not a member of the local community and that the jury undoubtedly would have favored the locally-based alleged victims (and may have held other biases based on race and other factors), we did not believe that Mr. Canady would receive a fair trial. As a result of this assessment, Mr. Canady agreed to enter an Alford plea, which does not admit guilt, but rather acknowledges the reality that a local jury would likely find a person guilty. Mr. Canady’s decision to enter an Alford plea was an expedient way to resolve this dispute and to effectively focus on recovering the funding fee from JP Global and on his professional activities. Underscoring the factual deficits in the DA’s case, the DA did not actively prosecute the case. When Mr. Canady sought to resolve it, the DA did not seek confinement. In essence, the only substantive “remedy” was an agreement to return the alleged victims’ investments. Upon reimbursement, all charges will be set aside and Mr. Canady will not have any record of a
  2. 2. August 25, 2014 2 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP conviction. Given the nature of the allegations, it is difficult to fathom that the DA would agree to dispose of the case in this manner if there was a factual basis for alleging fraud. In sum, although the claims were viewed as unmerited and, if anything, a civil matter concerning a funding dispute, a decision was made on advice of counsel to enter the Alford plea to avoid the impediments to obtaining a fair trial. Now that the distraction of this local case is beyond him, Mr. Canady is able to focus his time and efforts on his professional endeavors. Sincerely, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP T. Michael Guiffré Partner

×