Owens v. Gaffken & Barriger Fund LLC et al
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER:...For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' joint motion for a receivership (Owens Doc. #12 & Graham Docs. #20 & #21) is denied. re: 12 JOINT MOTION to Appoint Receiver. filed by Frank Owens., Motions terminated: 12 JOINT MOTION to Appoint Receiver. filed by Frank Owens. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William C. Conner on 03/23/2009) (gco)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-
X
FRANK OWENS, Plaintiff,
-
against
-
08 Civ. 8414 (WCC) GAFFKEN & BARRIGER FUND LLC; G&B PARTNERS, INC.; BARRIGER CAPITAL, LLC; BRIDGEVILLE MANAGEMENT, LLC; LLOYD VERNON BARRIGER; and ANDREW McKEAN, Defendants.
-
ECF CASE
X 08 Civ. 9357 (WCC)
ECF CASE
MARTHA GRAHAM, MARIA GRIMALDI , LLOYD HELLER, PAULA MANZOLILLO and CREAMTON MAPLE TRUST f/b/o CARL MILLS, Plaintiffs,
-
against
-
LLOYD V. BARRIGER; THE ESTATE OF ANDREW McKEAN; LINDA BARRIGER; THE GAFFKEN & BARRIGER FUND LLC; G&B PARTNERS, INC.; BARRIGER AND BARRIGER INC.; BARRIGER CAPITAL INC.; GITLIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP; JOHN DOE; and IRWIN GITLIN, Defendants.
-
:
OPINION
: :
AND ORDER
X
APPEARANCES:
LAZARE POTTER
&
GIACOVAS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Frank Owens
950 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 ROBERT A. GIACOVAS, ESQ LAINIE E. COHEN, ESQ. Of Counsel
APPEARANCES :
(continued)
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD J. LITCHMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs Martha Graham, Maria Grimaldi, Lloyd Heller, Paula Manzolillo and Creamton Maple Trust f/b/o Carl Mills 96 North Main Street Liberty, New York 12754 RONALD J. LITCHMAN, ESQ. Of Counsel K&L GATES LLP Attorneys for Defendant Gaffken & Barriger Fund LLC 1601 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 RICHARD A. KIRBY, ESQ. LISA M. RICHMAN, ESQ. Of Counsel KLESTADT & WINTERS, LLP Attorneys for Defendants Lloyd V. Barriger, G&B Partners, Inc. and Bridgeville Management, LLC 2 92 Madison Avenue, 17thF1. New York, New York 10017 TRACY L. KLESTADT, ESQ. JOHN E. JURELLER, JR., ESQ. Of Counsel
CONNER, Senior D.J.: Plaintiff, Frank Owens ("Owens plaintiff"), sues Gaffken & Barriger Fund, LLC (the "Fund"); G&B Partners, Inc. ("G&B"); Barriger Capital, LLC ("Barriger Capital"); Bridgeville Management, LLC ("Bridgeville"); Lloyd Vernon Barriger ("L.V. Barriger"); and Andrew McKean ("McKean"). In a separate but related action, plaintiffs, Martha Graham, Maria Grimaldi, Lloyd Heller, Paula Manzolillo and Creamton Maple Trust f/b/o Carl Mills ("Graham plaintiffs" and, together with Owens plaintiff, "plaintiffs"), sue L.V. Barriger; the Estate of McKean; Linda Barriger ("L. Barriger"); the Fund; G&B; Barriger and Barriger, Inc. ("B&B"); Barriger Capital; Gitlin & Associates, LLP ("Gitlin & Assocs."); and Irwin Gitlin ("Gitlin" and, together with the Fund, G&B, Barriger Capital, Bridgeville, L.V. Barriger, McKean, the Estate of McKean, L. Barriger, B&B and Gitlin & Assocs., "defendants"). Each plaintiff alleges that the defendants that they sue fraudulently misrepresented the risk of investing in the Fund. Plaintiffs now, jointly, move for the appointment of a receiver to assume control of the Fund. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs' motion is denied.
BACKGROUND Owens plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for what he alleges was defendants' fraudulent conduct in describing the Fund to him as a "safe, conservative, highly liquid investment, something `like a money market account,' with a `personally guaranteed 8% return,'" when the Fund, in fact, "turned out to be a highly leveraged real estate [fund] dedicated to lending money to high-risk borrowers." (Owens Complt. ¶¶ 12-13 (emphasis in original).) Owens plaintiff also alleges that defendants "failed to disclose that they were intimately connected with the [Fund] 1
. . . and were in fact being paid by the [Fund] for their services on its behalf." (Id. ¶ 14.) Graham plaintiffs make similar allegations and add that, while defendants acknowledged that the "Fund was suitable only for highly sophisticated and experienced investors, having high levels of income and net worth, in fact, defendants solicited and accepted investments from [Graham] plaintiffs, none of whom was a qualified investor." (Graham 1st Am. Complt. ¶ 7.) Graham plaintiffs also allege a more widespread fraud that involves the Fund's broker-dealer and the Fund's accounting firm. (See id. ¶¶ 10, 17.) According to plaintiffs, on March 5, 2008, they learned that the Fund had become "completely illiquid," owing, in part, to "the `global credit crunch.'" (Owens Complt. ¶¶ 28-29.) Plaintiffs aver that since the date on which redemptions were initially frozen to the present, defendants have engaged and are engaging in self-dealing, have treated and are treating certain insiders preferentially and have allowed and are allowing selective withdrawals of funds by favored parties. (See Pls. Mem. Supp. Mot. Receiver at 2-9.) Plaintiffs also argue that L.V. Barriger "controlled the fraudulent scheme" and, therefore, has "substantial conflicts of interest" with respect to his ongoing control over the liquidation of the Fund. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs now move for a receiver "to ensure that the Fund will not dissipate assets [which dissipation] could frustrate the [p]laintiffs['] ability to collect on any judgment that may be rendered in their favor." (Id. at 14.)
DISCUSSION A federal court has the power, in equity, to appoint a receiver to protect a party's interest in property "where the rights over that property are in dispute." Varsames v. Palazzolo, 96 F. Supp. 2d 361, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), citing FED. R. CIV. P. 66; see also Rosen v. Siegel, 106 F.3d 28, 33-34 2
(2d Cir. 1997). The appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy, "usually imposed only where no lesser relief will be effective." Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 674 (2d Cir. 1961). Courts employ this provisional, equitable remedy sparingly, "[i]nasmuch as a receivership may interfere seriously with defendant's property rights by ousting him or her from control, and sometimes even possession," and require the party seeking the appointment of a receiver to "show that he or she has some legally recognized right in that property that amounts to more than a mere claim against defendant." 12 CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PR O C ED U R E § 2983 (2009). Plaintiffs' claims are, principally, legal in nature; plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages based on defendants' alleged misrepresentations of the risk associated with investing in the Fund. It is foundational to the principles of preliminary relief that such relief may only take the form of that relief which may ultimately be granted. De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (Preliminary equitable relief should not be granted as a method of providing security for an anticipated money judgment.). Therefore, ordinarily, a party who brings only legal claims is not entitled to equitable relief, such as the appointment of a receiver. See, e.g., Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 310, 312 (1999). Plaintiffs do make one equitable claim in each Complaint, a claim for unjust enrichment, in addition to their legal claims.1 Based on that claim, we have the authority to grant preliminary equitable relief, however, we find that the appointment of a receiver is not an appropriate form of preliminary equitable relief based on the specific claims made in this case. We have carefully
1
The Owens Complaint also, originally, made an equitable claim for the imposition of a constructive trust; however, Owens plaintiff withdrew that claim in a letter to this Court, which we "so ordered" on March 9, 2009. 3
reviewed both Complaints and all of the materials submitted in support of this motion and have found no justification for the appointment of a receiver other than for the improper purpose of "ensur[ing] that the Fund will not dissipate assets [which dissipation] could frustrate the [p]laintiffs['] ability to collect on any judgment that may be rendered in their favor." (Pls. Mem. Supp. Mot. Receiver at 14); see also Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 310, 312 (Even where defendant's "only substantial asset" was in danger of dissipation, the district court had no power to prevent defendant from transferring assets that may ultimately be used to satisfy a money judgment); and Tang Capital Partners, LP v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 666, 671 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (explaining that "Grupo Mexicano stands for the proposition that a plaintiff who has sued for a completed breach of a contract cannot `secure' the money judgment to which he may someday become entitled by `holding up the money,' as it were, through an injunction against any transfer"). Further, while plaintiffs make a number of serious allegations of serious impropriety against defendants arising out of defendants' current management of the Fund, plaintiffs make these allegations only in support of their joint motion for a receiver and their argument that funds are in danger of dissipation; these allegations do not appear in either Complaint and no claim for permanent relief is premised on this conduct. (Compare Owens Complaint and Graham 1st Am. Complaint with Pls. Mem. Supp. Mot. Receiver at 8-12.) This is significant because plaintiffs are suing on the basis of what they allege is a completed fraud that is, the alleged fraud in inducing them to invest in the Fund by misrepresenting the Fund's inherent risks. The alleged impropriety relating to the Fund's current liquidation forms no basis for the relief sought in either the Owens Complaint or the Graham First Amended Complaint. Cf. Tang, 591 F. Supp. 2d at 672 (granting preliminary equitable relief to prevent defendant from consummating a transaction that would violate plaintiff's alleged 4
contractual rights so that the preliminary relief served to "prevent defendant from becoming liable to [plaintiff] for money damages," while taking care to note that plaintiff was "not trying to secure assets in order to satisfy a judgment for money damages"). Unlike Tang, here, even if defendants do engage in improper conveyances during the liquidation process, plaintiffs make no claim for relief based on such potentially fraudulent conduct and have made no representation to the Court that they intend to do so. Moreover, even if the Graham First Amended Complaint or Owens Complaint did make claims for relief that would render imposition of a receiver permissible,2 the situation presented is not one of the rare instances in which the extraordinary preliminary relief of appointing a receiver to assume control of the Fund would be warranted. It is undisputed that there is significant oversight of the liquidation of the Fund by nondefendant entities. In August of 2008, the Fund hired Fast4ward Capital Group, Inc. ("Fast4ward") to "advise it in connection with its workout of non-performing loans . . . [and] to review the Fund's portfolio, advise it on how to maximize the value of the individual investments, and oversee the execution of a value-maximizing plan for each asset." (Defs. Mem. Opp. Mot. Receiver at 9-10.) Fast4ward "has had complete access to the Fund's books and records and Fund management." (Id. at 10.) In September of 2008, the Fund also retained "Firestorm," a legal consulting firm that provides "crisis and litigation management support" and has focused on "reducing the overall litigation costs to the Fund." (Id. at 11.) In addition to these two entities, the Fund also has a secured creditor, Textron, who oversees the Fund's finances and is provided with numerous monthly
2
The Court has already granted Graham plaintiffs permission to amend their First Amended Complaint again; Graham plaintiffs did not answer the Court's inquiry as to whether they intended to add causes of action. 5
statements of the Fund's expenditures. (Id. at 11-12.) Plaintiffs aver that their interests differ from the interests of Textron, stating that "Textron is a private lender that is concerned only with recovering its loan. Whether any of the equity investors ever see their money is of no concern to Textron." (Pls. Mem. Supp. Mot. Receiver at 12.) It is unclear from plaintiffs' argument how Textron's interest is different from their own. Of course, the ultimate relief that Textron seeks is different from that sought by plaintiffs inasmuch as Textron seeks recovery of the money owed to it and plaintiffs seek recovery of the money owed to them. Still, the means to achieve both ends is the same: efficient maximization of the value of the assets now under management by the Fund. Pl
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?