Who is behind Inversiones Werden?

In the wake of the aforementioned contempt proceedings, Plaintiffs brought yet another instance of potentially contemptuous behavior to the Court’s attention during a hearing on September  30,  2009.  Through the questioning of Frederick Elliott at that hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel elicited information regarding a recent transfer of the Cofresi Cove, at least two villas, and two apartment complexes from an Elliott-related company to Inversiones Werden, S.A (“Werden”), a Dominican business entity that Plaintiffs suspected was affiliated with the DMK Defendants.  [Sept. 30, 2009 Tr. at 17-19].  After examining Mr. Elliott, Plaintiffs’ counsel questioned Mr. De Marchena regarding the relationship between Werden and the DMK Defendants.  In response to this line of questioning, Mr. De Marchena denied any present affiliation and testified that his law  firm had merely
incorporated Werden and promptly thereafter “transferred [their] shares” to a gentleman named Mr. Aleman.  [Sept. 30, 2009 Tr. at 30:15 - 30:20].


Following this hearing, however, a number of submissions raised serious questions about the veracity of Mr. De Marchena’s testimony.  Specifically, on October 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Dominican governmental certificate indicating that: (1) Werden’s address 24 is the office address of DMK; (2) Werden’s telephone number is the telephone number for DMK; (3) two of Werden’s shareholders are DMK attorneys; and (4) Werden’s secretary is Mr. De Marchena.  See  [DE 795].  Second, and more importantly,  was the DMK Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ filing, which effectively conceded that Mr. De Marchena was less than candid when questioned about the Werden-DMK relationship during the September 30, 2009 hearing.  Notably, the DMK Defendants’ response admitted that “the transfer of [Werden] shares [had] not been perfected” as of November 11, 2009.  [DE 834, p. 2].  Thus, notwithstanding Mr. De Marchena’s testimony to the contrary, the DMK Defendants were still affiliated with Werden at the time it  took title to  the properties at issue.

In light of the foregoing, I now find by clear and convincing evidence that the DMK Defendants violated  paragraph eight of the Monitor Order by taking actions  affecting property, assets, or estates of the Elliott Defendants “without the advice of and consent of the Monitor.”  See [DE 528, pp. 5-6].  Specifically, I conclude that the DMK Defendants, by virtue of their relationship with Werden, participated in the transfer of Elliott Defendant property when Werden took title to Cofresi Cove, the villas, and the apartment complexes.
See  [DE 751, pp. 16-19];  [DE 528, p. 6].



source: http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/09cv20526_956.pdf