Bruce Marks speaks at RT’s Sanchez Effect in Moscow, Russia

American Perspectives on Global Affairs from Moscow In a recent episode of RT’s Sanchez Effect, host Rick Sanchez welcomed Bruce Marks, a former...

Bruce Marks speaks at ThoughtLeaders4’s Sovereign & States Litigation Summit USA

We’re pleased to announce that Bruce Marks, Founder and Managing Member of Marks & Sokolov, will be speaking at ThoughtLeaders4’s Sovereign...

Bruce Marks Speaks at the Pravo.RU Conference

On September 19, Bruce Marks, Founder and Managing Director of Marks & Sokolov, speaks at the session “Liability Under Control” during...

Sergei Sokolov speaks at the Forbes Federal Legal Forum 2025

On 18 September 2025, Forbes Russia will host the annual Federal Legal Forum in Moscow, a central event for the Russian legal community focusing on...

Marks & Sokolov Secures Another OFAC License for Release of Blocked Russian Client Funds

Marks & Sokolov is pleased to announce another success in our sanctions-related practice: we have obtained an OFAC license authorizing the...

​Updates on the recent Russian-related § 1782 applications – U.S. courts weigh discovery requests tied to sanctions, shareholder disputes, and asset battles.

Section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code allows parties to seek discovery in U.S. courts for use in foreign proceedings. In recent years, Russian...

M&S Lawyers Recover On Commercial Fraud

by | Dec 24, 2013 | Results

Deluxe International Group v. R&M Plastic Recycling, LLC
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County Pennsylvania
 
What the Case Involved: Our client, a Canadian window manufacturer, ordered a quantity of PVC from an Ohio manufacturer, wiring the purchase price to a Pennsylvania attorney to hold the funds in escrow until the PVC was picked up by the Canadian window manufacturer’s trucking company.  When the trucks arrived at the Ohio PVC manufacture’s site, there was no product available.  The Canadian window manufacturer instructed the Pennsylvania escrow attorney to return its funds.  However, the Pennsylvania escrow attorney had already released the funds to the Ohio PVC manufacturer claiming his involvement was done.  Marks & Sokolov instituted suit based upon fraud against the Pennsylvania escrow attorney and the Ohio PVC manufacturer and its principals.
Result:  Marks & Sokolov obtained a full recovery of the $40,244 payment from the Canadian window manufacturer from the Pennsylvania escrow attorney and a judgment for $20,000 for additional damages caused by the failure to deliver the PVC against the Ohio PVC manufacturer.  Tom Sullivan served as lead counsel.Deluxe International Group v. R&M Plastic Recycling, LLC
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County Pennsylvania
 
What the Case Involved: Our client, a Canadian window manufacturer, ordered a quantity of PVC from an Ohio manufacturer, wiring the purchase price to a Pennsylvania attorney to hold the funds in escrow until the PVC was picked up by the Canadian window manufacturer’s trucking company.  When the trucks arrived at the Ohio PVC manufacture’s site, there was no product available.  The Canadian window manufacturer instructed the Pennsylvania escrow attorney to return its funds.  However, the Pennsylvania escrow attorney had already released the funds to the Ohio PVC manufacturer claiming his involvement was done.  Marks & Sokolov instituted suit based upon fraud against the Pennsylvania escrow attorney and the Ohio PVC manufacturer and its principals.
Result:  Marks & Sokolov obtained a full recovery of the $40,244 payment from the Canadian window manufacturer from the Pennsylvania escrow attorney and a judgment for $20,000 for additional damages caused by the failure to deliver the PVC against the Ohio PVC manufacturer.  Tom Sullivan served as lead counsel.