CEF: Higgerty Law Statement of Claim Section P – Liability of Taman and Bishop & McKenzie LLP

This article is part of the series from the Higgerty Law statement of claim. You can read what a statement of claim and a Quistclose Trust is in the first article in this series.

In this section allegations are made against Taman and Bishop & McKenzie LLP (TBM) who provided ABC District with legal counsel.  The allegations are that Taman

  • was a member of the POP Congregation,
  • either knew what was being done with CEF funds or was wilfully ignorant of that fact,
  • facilitated the various breeches alleged against the ABC District,
  • facilitated Shepherd’s Valley Ministries in their improper action,
  • facilitated the improper forgiveness of $6M loaned to the Prince of Peace Congregation,
  • Taman was working under the authority of Bishop & McKenzie LLP which makes them liable as well.

Please note that these are allegations only and this case has not been adjudicated in a court of law. As always, if you have any legal questions or need legal advice please consult appropriate legal counsel.


From Higgerty Law Statement of Claim

P. Liability of Taman and Bishop & McKenzie LLP
188. At all times material to these proceedings Taman was a member of the POP Congregation, the Chairman of the POP Congregation’s Housing Committee, and counsel for both ABC District and ECHS.

189. Taman knew of the existence of the CEF Trust and the CEF Quistclose Trust or alternatively was willfully or recklessly blind to the existence of the CEF Trust and the CEF Quistclose Trust.

190. Taman knew or was willfully blind to the fact that the use of CEF monies to finance the purchase and development of the POP Village Lands contravened the intent and purpose of the ABC District Church Extension Program and the terms of the CEF Trust or alternatively the CEF Quistclose Trust.

191. Acting in bad faith, and for an improper purpose, Taman advised ABC District with respect to, and knowingly facilitated, the following breaches of duty by ABC District for his own direct and/or indirect personal financial benefit in :

a. The ABC District’s breaches of trust as set out in paras. 146 – 161 herein, and
b. The ABC District’s breaches of fiduciary duty as set out in para. 166 – 168 herein, in order to preserve the relationship between his law firm and the ABC District, to generate legal work and legal fees for himself and his law firm, and to garner future legal work, all of which caused the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub-class members to suffer damages and loss.

192. Accordingly, Taman is jointly and severally liable along with the ABC District for the damages and loss caused to the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub-class members as a result of those breaches of duty.

193. Acting in bad faith, and for an improper purpose, Taman advised SVML with respect to, and knowingly facilitated, SVML’s receipt of the Shepherd’s Village Lands and the proceeds of the SVML CEF Loans in breach of the CEF Trust and the CEF Quistclose Trust.

194. Taman knew or was willfully blind to the fact that

a. the use of CEF monies to finance the purchase and development of the Shepherd’s Village Lands contravened the intent and purpose of the ABC District Church Extension Program and the terms of the CEF Trust or alternatively the CEF Quistclose Trust; and
b. The forgiveness of the Shepherd’s Village CEF Loans by the ABC District was a fraudulent and dishonest scheme, in that it deprived the CEF Trust or the CEF Quistclose Trust of those funds, it was for the benefit of SVML and not for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the CEF and CEF Quistclose Trusts, and constituted a risk and prejudice to the interests of the beneficiaries of the CEF and CEF Quistclose Trusts that Taman knew it was not entitled to take.

195. Taman advised SVML with respect to the receipt of the Shepherd’s Village Lands and the proceeds of the SVML CEF Loans, and knowingly facilitated the breaches of the CEF Trust and the CEF Quistclose Trust in order to preserve the relationship between his law firm and SVML, and to generate legal work and fees for himself and his firm.

196. Accordingly, Taman is jointly and severally liable with SVML to the Plaintiffs and the members of the putative Class and Sub-class members for breach of trust, rendering knowing assistance to the breach of the CEF Trust or alternatively the CEF Quistclose Trust and/or knowing receipt of the Shepherd’s Village Lands and the proceeds of the SVML CEF Loans in breach of the CEF Trust or alternatively the CEF Quistclose Trust.

197. Taman advised the POP Congregation and/or the ABC District with respect to the POP Congregation Land Sale Proceeds Assignment Agreement referenced in paras. 88 – 90 herein.

198. Taman knew or was willfully blind to the fact that:

a. The POP Congregation Land Sale Proceeds Assignment Agreement was a fraudulent and dishonest scheme, in that the forgiveness of $6 million of the POP Congregation Loan in exchange for the right to receive proceeds from the future sale of land owned by the POP Congregation was wholly inadequate consideration for the ABC District’s forgiveness of the debt, and it deprived the CEF of a $6 million loan receivable, and
b. The Sale Proceeds Assignment Agreement was for the benefit of Taman’s own congregation, the POP Congregation, and not for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the CEF and CEF Quistclose Trusts, and constituted a risk and prejudice to the interests of the beneficiaries of the CEF and CEF Quistclose Trusts that the ABC District knew it was not entitled to take.

199. Taman advised the ABC District and/or the POP Congregation with respect to the POP Congregation Land Sale Proceeds Assignment Agreement, and knowingly facilitated the breaches of the CEF Trust and the CEF Quistclose Trust in order to preserve the relationship between his law firm and SVML, and to generate legal work and fees for himself and his firm.

200. Accordingly, Taman is jointly and severally liable with the ABC District and/or the POP Congregation to the Plaintiffs and the members of the putative Class and Sub-class members for breach of trust, rendering knowing assistance to the breach of the CEF Trust or alternatively the CEF Quistclose Trust.

201. Further, at all times material to this proceeding Taman was acting in the ordinary course of the business of Bishop & McKenzie LLP or with the authority of his partners therein. Accordingly, Bishop & McKenzie LLP is vicariously liable for Taman’s breaches of duty and wrongful acts as set out in paras. 188 – 199 herein.

202. In the alternative, Bishop & McKenzie LLP had actual knowledge of the wrongful conduct of Taman as set out herein, or was reckless or willfully blind thereto. Therefore, Bishop & McKenzie LLP is liable to the Plaintiffs and the putative Class and Sub-class members for the wrongful conduct of Taman as set out in paras. 188 – 199 herein

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: