William F. Browder Served with Subpoena for the Third Time by Prevezon Holdings Ltd

Prevezon Holdings Ltd reports on the successful service of a third subpoena on William F. Browder on Tuesday 3rd February 2015

STATEMENT BY PREVEZON HOLDINGS LLP

William F. Browder was served with a subpoena for the third time by Prevezon Holdings Ltd on Tuesday February 3, 2015.  Browder attempted to evade service by running from the process servers, entering and exiting his chauffeur-driven car, and running down West 51st Street in Manhattan.  Dkt. No. 225-1.  Browder makes himself freely available to the media for a worldwide publicity campaign, but he will not submit to critical examination by those he accuses of wrongdoing.

Browder was identified by the U.S. Government as the person who packaged a lawsuit against Prevezon and delivered it to the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan.  In a deposition on March 3, 2014, a Government’s representative testified that: (1) the Government relied primarily on the documents provided by Browder, the Magnitsky Act, and websites identified by Browder; and (2) the Government did not review this information critically.  Dkt. 137-4 at 17:5-19:19, 53:6-55:4, 107:14-108:8, 174:5-14 (Deposition of Government).   The next day the Government told the Court that “William Browder and the principals at Hermitage will be key witnesses in this case.”  Dkt. 137-6 at 26:23-27:5.

Since those disclosures, Prevezon has been seeking to compel Browder’s sworn testimony, but he has made every effort to avoid testifying.  Among other topics, Prevezon wants to ask Browder about potentially serious deficiencies in the story he told the Government about Prevezon, and any motive he may have to target Mr. Denis Katsyv and Prevezon.

On September 10, 2013, the Government filed its Complaint in United States v. Prevezon Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 13-CV-6326 (S.D.N.Y.) and obtained a worldwide freezing order against millions in real estate in New York and Germany.  Prevezon, a real estate holding company operated by Mr. Katsyv, has denied all wrongdoing and has filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which are pending. 

Timeline of Attempted Subpoena Service on William F. Browder:

  • On March 20, 2014, Defendants first asked the Government to make its chief witness (Browder) available for a pretrial deposition. Dkt. No. 189 2.  Browder then refused to accept service of a subpoena voluntarily.  Dkt. No. 137-8.
     
  • On May 5, 2014, Defendants served a subpoena on Browder in his capacity as Director of Hermitage Global Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership.  Dkt. No. 125-26.  According to his company’s SEC filings, Browder had been an officer or director from 2010 until 2013.  In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to Non Parties Hermitage Global Partners LP & William Browder, 1:14-mc-00551 (D.D.C.) (“D.C. Action”), Dkt. No. 4-10 at p. 3-30.  Hermitage amended its SEC forms to deny that Browder had been an officer or director to support his opposition to the subpoena. D.C. Action, Dkt. No. 15 at 21 n.8.   
     
  • Because Browder was resisting the Delaware subpoena, Defendants served Browder on July 29, 2014, in Aspen, Colorado where he has registered two vehicles listing his residence as an eight-bedroom, 11,000 square foot Aspen mansion worth over $11 million registered in the name of a shell company.  Dkt. No. 189-12; Dkt. No. 189-13; Dkt. No. 185 40; Dkt. No. 189-17; Dkt. No. 189-25.  At that time, he was attending a conference organized by the Aspen Action Forum.  Dkt. No. 189-16; Dkt. Nos. 125-17; Dkt. No. 189-13; Dkt. No. 189-14.  A witness to the service told Aspen reporters that Browder “pretty much ran away.”  Dkt. No. 189-25.  A second process server placed a copy of the subpoena under the windshield wiper of the Browder’s automobile, but Browder had his minor son throw the subpoena away.  Dkt. No. 189-11 1, 10-13; Dkt. No. 189-12.  In seeking to have the court quash the subpoena, Browder claims that he does not reside at the Aspen mansion, which is supposedly “indirectly owned by members of” his family.  
     
  • Defendants thus served Browder while he was in New York promoting the launch of his book on February 3, 2015.  A video of the subpoena service and Browder’s attempt to flee has been filed with the Court.  Dkt. No. 225-1. The footage serves as an example of Browder’s repeated attempts to unlawfully evade subpoena service and deny the Defendants their right to face their accuser.
     
  • Videos of the service have been uploaded by Casale Associates and are available to watch on YouTube.

Categories: Commercial Law, Business

Tags: Bill Browder, subpoena, William Browder