Opinion ID: 1644439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Right of Action as Sam Presley's Succession Representative

Text: Setting aside the issue of whether, pursuant to La. R.S. 22:735(A), the liquidation order would have divested the owner of USGA of any ownership interest in that company, we will address the additional arguments presented on the right of action issue. Barbara Presley amended her reconventional demand against the Commissioner to reflect that she was named as Sam Presley's succession representative. Because Sam Presley was the undisputed owner of USGA, the question now becomes whether Barbara, as Sam Presley's succession representative, has a right of action to pursue the claim for the loss realized by the sale of the M-Tel securities. The Commissioner argues that Barbara Presley has no claim against him in her capacity as Sam Presley's succession representative. The Commissioner asserts that Sam pled guilty in connection with his operation of the ANA single-business enterprise, and as part of that plea bargain, he agreed to forfeit his interest in those companies. Thus, as Sam's succession representative, Barbara stands in Sam's shoes and is bound by Sam's admission and forfeiture. Sam Presley's plea agreement provides in Paragraph 5: The defendant hereby agrees to forfeit any right, title and interest to any assets or interest in assets, ... that were involved in, used in, intended for use in, or obtained through the racketeering activity to which he is pleading guilty.... (Emphasis added) [15] The Factual Basis filed in the federal proceeding, which sets forth the government's evidence on which the plea agreement was based, makes clear that funds from ANA and USGA and CSG were involved in Presley's crimes. Both the plea agreement and the Factual Basis were signed by Sam Presley. However, despite Sam's signed plea deal including the forfeiture agreement, and despite federal mandates that the Court order forfeiture in these circumstances, [16] no forfeiture order was entered. The lack of a forfeiture order was apparently due to the fact that ANA had been placed in receivership, and had no tangible assets to seize. The record contains the deposition of Peter G. Strasser, who was involved in Sam Presley's federal criminal case in his capacity as Chief of the Department of Justice's Organized Crime Strike Force assigned to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Mr. Strasser's deposition provides the following testimony: By Mr. Massey (Counsel for the Commissioner): Q: One of the things in the Plea Agreement that I wanted to address was the forfeiture provision; and I'm going to flip you back, if I may, to Tab 7, Section 5. Did Mr. Presley indicate that he would forfeit his interest or agreed to forfeit his interest in certain items? Mr. Strasser: A: That's what Paragraph 5 says, yes. Q: At the time of this prosecution plea and sentence, had ANA Insurance Company been placed in Receivership by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court? A: Yes. Q: Did you have any understanding of whether there were any assets in ANA Insurance Company at that time? A: It was my understanding based upon what was told to me by both Rick O'Bryan and by the FBI agent that there was no tangible assets upon which we could seize. Q: Did you go about a perceived vain and useless effort of seizing assets that didn't exist, in your mind? A: By the way you structured the question, the answer speaks for itself. No, we did not. There was nothing for us to forfeit. So therefore, at the point in time of sentencing or right before sentencing when we would normally do a forfeiture hearing, I did not call for forfeiture hearing, because there was nothing for me to forfeit. Clearly, the reason that no forfeiture order was entered was because there was perceived to be no assets that would be subject to forfeiture. The government's position was that a forfeiture hearing was a vain and useless exercise. Thus, the lack of a forfeiture order is not determinative of this issue. Sam pled guilty to federal felony charges arising out of his operation of ANA and the related companies. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we can find no authority which would allow Sam Presley to bring an action against the Commissioner related to the sale of the M-Tel securities. As Sam's succession representative, Barbara Presley stands in Sam's shoes, and therefore Barbara cannot assert any right that Sam could not also assert. Thus, we hold that Barbara Presley is estopped from asserting a claim against the Commissioner as Sam's succession representative.