Readers of this site will know that Wilmer Ruperti is a subject of great interest. In short, Ruperti transitioned from being a “master of tankers” to becoming the go-to person for all of PDVSA’s shipping needs. Quite an achievement, assisted (as Ruperti himself claims) by Ali Rodríguez and Rafael Ramírez. In the process, he undoubtedly made a fortune.
Not long ago, Ruperti was mentioned as a source of funding in the legal defense of Nicolás Maduro‘s drug-dealing nephews. David Boies, lawyer for Harvey Weinstein, handled the case of these nephews, who were sentenced to 18 years for attempting to import around 800 kilograms of cocaine into the United States, and Ruperti admitted to covering Boies’ fees.
Next, there’s the case of American missionary Joshua Holt, who is imprisoned in Venezuela. It’s better to link to AP for background on this. In this instance, Ruperti is also utilizing David Boies. According to AP, Ruperti’s involvement in Holt’s case was at the request of Bill Duker, a longtime colleague and confidant of Boies.
Duker’s actions are not without cost. There’s another matter in which Ruperti, Boies, and Duker are currently entangled: the PDVSA US Litigation Trust.
The former regime of PDVSA—established by the now disgraced, sought-after, and fugitive Rafael Ramírez—set up a trust to pursue legal action against a former employee of Ruperti along with some of the largest energy trading houses in the world. The terms of the trust contract clearly violate the Constitution of Venezuela. The trustees—Edward P Swyer and Vincent Stephen Andrews—are nothing more than representatives of Boies and Duker. A shell company named ALGAMEX is described, without further details, as the source of funding for the trust.
Meanwhile, PDVSA continues its business relationships with some of the defendants (Helsinge, Vitol, Glencore, Lukoil, and Trafigura) that the litigation trust established by PDVSA itself is suing. For example, leaked data shows that in March and April, Trafigura received nearly 2.5 million barrels of crude oil from PDVSA.
Quevedo has turned to Boies’ close associate Hilda Cabeza to discuss, among other things, the situation of the trust. Reports indicate that one of the signatories of the trust agreement, Venezuela’s Attorney General Reinaldo Muñoz Pedroza, will visit New York City to meet with Boies at the end of May.
With this framework in place, I’ve been looking into Ruperti’s activities, connections, legal disputes, and so on. In the case Latin American Investments Ltd v Maroil Trading Inc et al, Ruperti is essentially accused of misappropriating around $177 million, stemming from PDVSA’s violations concerning commercial transactions and shipping agreements with companies and vessels owned by/controlled by Ruperti and the Sargeant family. If I interpreted the claim correctly, Ruperti negotiated a deal with PDVSA, on behalf of himself and his partners, which, once he secured it, he pocketed without notifying his partners.
Things get really strange from here. From the Novoship case in London, we learn about Andrew Longhurst, a former finance director and disgruntled employee of Ruperti, who allegedly passed information about Ruperti’s assets to Daniel Hall, who was at that point an investigator for Focus Intelligence, retained by the Russians for their legal disputes with Ruperti.
A sworn statement from Benjamin Patrick Ogden claims that Hall pressed Longhurst for evidence about Ruperti, until they eventually reached an agreement, wherein Longhurst would receive unpaid wages owed to him by Ruperti in a future settlement in the Novoship lawsuit against Ruperti.
In the context of Hall’s dealings with Longhurst, Nick Fairfax is mentioned. That would be Nicholas John Albert Fairfax, the fourteenth Lord Fairfax of Cameron according to Wikipedia. Fairfax himself describes his role as a risk management strategist for the Sovcomflot Group. Sovcomflot is the ultimate parent company of Novoship. Fairfax emailed an offer to “waive the money that Maroil and Ruperti owe Mr. Longhurst,” should the information provided by Longhurst prove useful for Novoship.
Essentially, Fairfax offered to return all information to Longhurst if Novoship succeeded in its claims against Ruperti “without relying on the information provided” by Longhurst. That is, Longhurst could recover the money Ruperti owed him, only if the plaintiffs could make good use of the information he provided.
The way Longhurst obtained the information during his employment with Ruperti isn’t disputed. But the use he made of it after being fired by Ruperti certainly is.
This didn’t bother Hall in the slightest. Nor did it bother Novoship, which according to Ogden ended up buying Longhurst’s claim for unpaid wages for $300,000. To round things off, Hall hired Longhurst as a consultant for Focus Intelligence at the time Fairfax was emailing his proposal. Note that Hall had no problem using the information obtained by a former employee of Ruperti to assist Novoship.
Fast forward a few years. Hall’s Focus Intelligence firm is acquired by Burford Capital, which is involved as a litigation funding source for Novoship’s lawsuit against Ruperti in the UK. Hall becomes part of Burford.
In court documents filed in another case against Ruperti in Florida (Harry Sargeant III v Maroil, Ruperti et al), it is claimed that Hall conspired with Dan Sargeant to access emails of Harry Sargeant III, which were hosted on the Sargeant family’s commercial servers. Harry III asserts that his information was personal, confidential, and that as a 25% partner in the family venture, he was not subject to any unauthorized control/access from his relatives/partners without his consent.
Allegedly, Hall exchanged the information he obtained from Dan Sargeant regarding Harry III for what he had received from Ruperti’s ex-employee, Longhurst, to assist his clients.
In a separate case reported by the Wall Street Journal, Hall appears as a sort of cyber detective, who was hired to assist in litigation against Harry III. Tasked with finding assets, Hall pursued his target through London and Geneva in an attempt to serve him and seize an airplane.
What is extraordinary is that Hall and his employer Burford allegedly engaged in such activities without considering their possible consequences. Burford Capital is a publicly traded company, which means that the actions of its employees would interest regulators.
A request for comments was sent to Daniel Hall:
My name is Alek Boyd, and I am an investigative journalist from Venezuela.
Wilmer Ruperti has been a topic of my investigation for several years.
According to documents recently filed in PACER, from which I got your email, I infer that you are involved in a current case involving Ruperti.
I would appreciate your comments on the paragraph below (bold added for emphasis), for an article I am preparing, and I would be very thankful if you could respond as soon as possible.
“Ultimately, the very nature of Hall’s scheme makes the SAC’s allegation that he knew it was illegal to obtain the HS3 Material likely. Hall offered the Ruperti Material, which was subject to a non-disclosure agreement and was to be destroyed as part of a confidential settlement agreement, in exchange for the HS3 Material (SAC ¶¶ 29-30). Hall not only sought to violate the law by obtaining the HS3 Material, but his principal bargaining chip, the Ruperti Material, was obtained in a separate violation of the law. Hall then repeatedly maintained his request for the HS3 Material. DSargeant understandably hesitated to provide the HS3 Material because all parties involved understood it had been obtained illegally. Therefore, during the first meeting between Hall and DSargeant, Hall only provided a preview of the Ruperti Material to ensure DSargeant’s compliance with his end of the illicit agreement (SAC ¶¶ 35-36).”
Hall did not respond. Instead, I received the following from Mark Klein, Burford’s General Counsel:
Mr. Boyd,
We are in receipt of your email.
Burford has a long-standing policy of not commenting on individual litigation matters. Confidentiality in such matters belongs to the client, not to Burford.
However, we note that you are proposing to make multiple allegations that Burford violated the law. We deny any such allegation and inform you of the defamatory nature of those statements, to which we reserve all rights.
mark n klein
General Counsel
BURFORD CAPITAL
As I responded to both Hall and Klein, I don’t know in what parallel universe requesting comments about information contained in public filings could be interpreted as defamation. Perhaps the legal action that Burford’s reservations might take could come after suing Hall, Andrew Preston, Dan Sargeant, Harry III, Ogden, Longhurst, Fairfax, court clerks in Florida and the UK, and PACER. Or maybe, considering the parties involved and their methods, my family and I will be threatened, harassed and some bullies will pay us another visit.
Independent judicial authorities will eventually determine which of the Sargeants/Ruperti is at fault here. But that doesn’t make Hall’s alleged actions any more kosher. And it certainly doesn’t make Burford’s General Counsel’s response any more acceptable.
A journalist reaches out for comment. If what comes back is a legal threat, that tough stance creates more suspicion, not less. It’s called the Streisand effect. If Burford Capital wanted me to think nothing was wrong with Hall’s actions, as cited above, they couldn’t have chosen a more counterproductive strategy.
Fairfax, Hall, Burford, Preston… belong to that London tribe of “gentlemen,” convinced of their own infallibility. It’s a nice crowd, whose best representatives are regularly portrayed, in “defamatory character,” I suppose, by the media.
This site will uphold another excellent tradition: that of journalists who speak the truth to the striped-pants brigade and expose corruption.