Pershing, L.L.C. v. Thomas Kiebach, et al, No. 17-30520 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-30520 Document: 00514458681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-30520 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 4, 2018 PERSHING, L.L.C., Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. THOMAS KIEBACH, represented by Executory of his estate, Thomas J. Moran; MARCEL DUMESTRE; MARGARET DUMESTRE; MAMIE HELEN BAUMANN, Through power of attorney Mamie C. Sanchez; JOSEPH BECKER; ET AL, Defendants - Appellants -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THOMAS KIEBACH, represented by Executory of his estate; MAMIE HELEN BAUMANN, Through power of attorney Mamie C. Sanchez; JOSEPH BECKER; AMERITRUST CORPORATION, on behalf of Benton Bruce Johnson Trust #1, Benton B. Johnson Test TRII, Martha JC Johnson Gen Skpg Tr.; TERENE BEVEN; ET AL Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PERSHING, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee Case: 17-30520 Document: 00514458681 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2018 No. 17-30520 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:14-CV-2549 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* A group of Louisiana retirees suffered losses at the hands of R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme. Those retirees later brought arbitration claims against Pershing, L.L.C. (a clearing broker for one of Stanford’s business entities), alleging various sorts of wrongdoing. The arbitrators ruled in Pershing’s favor, and both Pershing and the retirees filed lawsuits—Pershing to confirm the award and the retirees to vacate it. Following consolidation, the district court denied the retirees’ motion for summary judgment and granted Pershing’s motion for summary judgment, thereby confirming the arbitrators’ award. We agree with the district court’s decision, and we do so for essentially the same reasons contained in the district court’s order dated May 22, 2017. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
