Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Britestarr Homes Inc. v. Piper Rudnick LLP
Citation: 383 F. App'x 413Docket: No. 06-4959-bk
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; December 3, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Britestarr Homes Inc. appeals a summary judgment favoring Piper Rudnick LLP, concerning five claims related to Piper's advice for Britestarr to file for bankruptcy in May 2002: breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, professional malpractice, and tortious interference with business relations. The appellate court reviews the district court's decision de novo, emphasizing that summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine material issues of fact. Britestarr's claims hinge on demonstrating damages; however, it fails to establish a triable issue regarding damages across its claims. Specifically, the court finds that the reorganization plan does not represent the market value of Britestarr’s property, and thus no factual dispute exists concerning property value loss due to bankruptcy. Additionally, the expert analysis of lost profits from a proposed power plant was deemed overly speculative. It relied on the assumption that various conditions, such as financing and construction, would have occurred, which the court ruled as not meeting the necessary certainty for damages. Regarding the disbursement of funds to Britestarr’s president, David Norkin, the court agrees with the district court that any procedural deficiencies cited by an expert did not harm Britestarr, as Norkin had full control over the company’s accounts. Lastly, Britestarr's claim for tortious interference is dismissed due to a lack of evidence showing any business relationship that was adversely impacted. Ultimately, the appellate court finds no merit in Britestarr's remaining claims and affirms the district court's judgment.