Members of a wealthy Vermont family say a $27.6 million judgement against their former financial advisor is justified after he allegedly misled them about the risks of an investment and failed to disclose his potential conflicts of interest.
A New Hampshire jury previously sided with the Hoehl family, finding that Ronald Roberts, a Bedford money manager, violated his fiduciary duty through a series of investments in a risky start-up company.
Roberts died from cancer earlier this year. Attorney Laura Carroll, who is representing his estate, told New Hampshire Supreme Court justices on Wednesday that the $27 million verdict should be overturned, pointing to repeated disclosures about investments in the company, G-Form, that were provided to the Hoehl’s over a seven-year period. She alleged the family waited too long to file its claim, and that the Hoehl’s had opportunities but never asked about the investments in the company.
“You need to look at your bank statements,” Carroll said. “You don’t get to wait until then to say, ‘Now I’m damaged, now I’m upset.’”
The Hoehl family amassed considerable wealth after founding and later selling a medical technology company, IDX Systems, based in South Burlington, to IBM for $1.2 billion.
Roberts and his business partners managed the family’s money, and in 2012, approached them about an investment in G-Form, which at the time focused on foam-based protective equipment for athletes.
Lawyers for the family contend that they weren’t aware that Roberts himself would eventually take a seat on G-Form’s board of directors, or that he loaned the company more than $26 million of their money. Those loans would eventually turn sour as G-Form continued to lose money.
“He preferred G-Form’s interests to [the family’s], something that the Hoehl’s could not, should not, and did not know, until early 2019,” attorney Scott Harris told the court.
The family did receive quarterly investment statements from Roberts which listed its holdings in G-Form under the category of “alternative investments.” The family claims, however, that it was not aware of the size of the loan, or that Roberts himself was eventually awarded 750,000 shares in the company, potentially clouding his judgment about whether the company was worthy of further investment.
During oral arguments, justices asked multiple questions about Roberts’ duty as a fiduciary advisor to the family, and whether the burden to inquire about his investments fell on the family.
