Author Avatar

editor

0

Share post:

The Mindset 24 defendants are getting closer to an SEC settlement after a Telephonic Status Conference on April 15th.

Individual ex parte phone conferences with the court are to be organized, according to the ruling. This is ‘for the Court to evaluate if further ADR is warranted,’ according to the April 15th ruling.

Alternative Dispute Resolution, or “ADR,” is a process that, if successful, leads to a settlement between the parties.

The counsel for defendant John Brian McLane wants out, which might throw a wrench in the works.

McLane’s lawyer submitted a Motion to Withdraw on April 11th, four days before the planned teleconference. “Professional considerations” were given as the explanation for the requested withdrawal.

I typed it into Google, along with “attorney withdraw,” and the following came up: A lawyer must typically deny or withdraw from representation if the client insists that the lawyer participates in an activity that is illegal or breaches the Rules of Professional Conduct or other legislation.

I’m not sure whether it relates to McLane’s pending former attorney’s connection, as described. However, it appears that McLane (right) isn’t taking his SEC case very well in a larger context.

McLane’s lawyer asked for a 90-day stay on the existing pre-trial dates as part of the Motion to Withdraw.

The SEC responded to the request on April 12th. The SEC opposed the sought postponement, stating that they had “no stance” on McLane’s attorney’s withdrawal request.

If, as the Motion alleges, Defendant McLane was previously informed of Mr. Flynn’s intention to withdraw, McLane should have already made plans to hire alternative counsel.

The SEC feels that if he has not done so, a 30-day term to retain counsel would be more appropriate.

The SEC wishes to complete the remaining pre-trial deadlines set out in the Amended Scheduling Order as soon as practicable.

The court took the withdrawal application under advisement during the hearing on April 15th. Nonetheless, certain deadlines have been postponed pending the outcome of ongoing settlement negotiations.

Last year, the SEC filed a lawsuit against defendants Brian McClane and Paul Anthony Nash. The pair’s firm, Mindset 24, is accused of being a $1 million-plus Ponzi scam, according to the regulator.

Paul Nash has chosen to represent himself in this case, which is rare.

Pro Trade Club Review - Is a Fraud
Gauss Global Review - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *