Regarding the legal basis for an aiding and abetting claim, the court stated:
The district court reversed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of that claim. The court then turned to the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty allegations.
#AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY PROFESSIONAL#
The court affirmed the dismissal of the professional negligence claim because the trustee did not allege sufficient allegations of proximate cause. The district court affirmed the dismissal of the direct breach of fiduciary duty claims because, although the trustee alleged a conflict of interest, there were no allegations that Greenberg represented the company and the president in his individual capacity at the same time. Greenberg filed a motion to dismiss, which the bankruptcy court granted, and the trustee appealed to the district court. A bankruptcy trustee later asserted claims against Greenberg for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and (3) malpractice and negligence arising from its preparation of the Cancellation Agreement. Greenberg drafted an agreement that would cancel the president’s employment contract, release him from his non-competition and non-solicitation obligations, and promise to pay him any accrued obligations (the “Cancellation Agreement”). Salamone, the Greenberg Taurig lawfirm represented the bankrupt company when it sued a president and board member.
0 kommentar(er)
