Friedmans liquidating trust
§ 1292(b) provides: When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion/that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state'in writing in such order. To qualify an issue for interlocutory appeal three requirements must be met: (1) it must involve a controlling question of law; (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal would materially advance the termination of the litigation. The Court previously rejected A & B's in pari delicto defense to the Trustee's claims against A & B. The Trustee alleges that the interested directors and Cohen were promoting the million investment in Crescent only to further their own interests in Crescent, not the interests of Friedman's. Crescent never paid the dividends Friedman's was owed, and since the investment left Friedman's unsecured, it lost its entire million investment when Crescent declared bankruptcy in 2004. And, because it is alleged that the transaction would never have occurred but for A & B's malpractice, the adverse interest exception applies. A & B now contends that Delaware law should apply in determining the issue of whether in pari delicto bars the plaintiffs claims against it. Furthermore, absent A & B's negligence and malpractice Friedman's would never have approved the investment. In fact, Friedman's never received anything for its investment. The Trustee has not conceded that Friedman's received any real benefit from the wrongdoing of its directors. The two claims are not duplicative because they rest on different legal standards. In contrast, a § 548 claim requires the plaintiff to show that he "received less than a reasonably equivalent value" for the value he transferred. Hence, the standard for finding legal malpractice and finding a debtor "received less than a reasonably equivalent value" is not the same. Meanwhile, the Court grants the Trustee's reconsideration motion and concludes that his avoidance claims in fact were properly reserved in the confirmed bankruptcy plan. Here the Trustee had plied what's known as the "adverse interest exception" to the in pari delicto defense. 8(d)(2) allows a plaintiff to plead alternative claims. § , Inconsistent claims or defenses No election of remedies (Apr.2008). To reiterate, the in pari delicto doctrine basically says that if the company was the wrongdoer, the Trustee cannot pursue others on behalf of the company for victimizing the company, since the company is said to have victimized itself. Thus, the Trustee's claims are not barred by in pari delicto. Friedman's also was insolvent by 8/27/02, and for all transfers made after that date. The Court will thus allow the pleading of alternative theories of recovery, but no double recovery. Count XIII and Count XIV of the Complaint are therefore reinstated against A & B. A & B argued against that exception, and also raised the "sole actor rule" (a sole actor ran the company, so there can be no adverse interest exception) to defeat that exception. And Friedman's, A & B also points out, received million in preferred Crescent stock plus million in subordinated notes in exchange for the million investment. There the Eleventh Circuit held that, even when the director's wrongful actions created short term benefits, where the trustee alleged that but for the company's accountant's negligence the transaction never would have occurred, the adverse interest exception still applies. There the misconduct of the directors and the malpractice of the accountants provided the appearance that the company was healthy after the acquisition. Presumably the same facts underlie both the legal malpractice and fraudulent conveyance claims, but F. A legal malpractice claim requires proof of (1) the employment of a lawyer; (2) failure of the lawyer to exercise ordinary care, skill and diligence; and (3) damages proximately caused by that failure. "Reasonably equivalent value, for constructive fraudulent transfer avoidance purposes, is not an esoteric concept; rather, the party receives reasonably equivalent value, if it gets roughly the value that it gave." 3B BANKRSERVICE L. Theoretically, then, it is possible that the plaintiff could fail to recover under a legal malpractice theory, yet still recover under a § 548 theory. However, because the same facts underlie each claim, and the damages overlap, at trial the plaintiff would not be allowed to recover on both claims. Furthermore, his fraudulent conveyance claim is not duplicative of the legal malpractice claims. That exception applies, and allows the company to recover, when the company's agents have acted entirely adverse to the company. Since Friedman's received benefits from the million investment in Crescent, A & B reasons, the adverse interest exception does not apply., 736 (11th Cir.1998)]. The court ruled that, where the trustee had not conceded that the company was better off in the short or long term because of the wrongful actions of the directors and the accountants ... Significantly, A & B fails to cite a single case that actually applies Delaware law to this issue. Contrary to A & B's contention that the law of the state of incorporation applies, courts look to the law of the state where the cause of action arose when determining imputation issues.
And "Georgia courts have historically exercised their equitable powers to bar the use of equitable defenses where the result would be harm to innocent third parties, such as creditors." Id. Hence, it should not be applied in a case in which to withhold relief would, to a greater extent, offend public morals." Id. Because Georgia law applies to this issue, the Court technically erred by relying on Beck because that case applied Florida law. (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 794 (7th ed.1999)). "This is so because the doctrine of in pari delicto is based on the principle that to give the plaintiff relief would contravene public morals and impair the good of society. In Georgia, in pari delicto is an equitable doctrine. Hence, "a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing." Id. Here the entire theory of the Trustee's case is that certain directors and officers of Friedman's were acting against the interests of the corporation and solely for their own personal interests and the interests of Crescent. Because this is a fact intensive inquiry, the Court also finds that it is not a situation that merits certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U. Friedman's Inc., a large jewelry store chain, financially collapsed and entered Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 2005.
G of the Disclosure Statement is there any preservation of claims for preferential transfers or avoidance actions against A & B. It argues that, because Friedman's received some benefits (stock, promissory notes, and improvement of its balance sheet) from the fraudulent acts of its directors and officers, the Court's Order is at odds with other decisions.