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: 256 F. App'x 413Docket: No. 06-4959-bk
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; December 3, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiff-Appellant Britestarr Homes Inc. appeals a summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Piper Rudnick LLP, issued by the District of Connecticut on September 29, 2006. Britestarr presents five claims against Piper related to a recommendation to file for bankruptcy in May 2002: breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting that breach, civil conspiracy, professional malpractice, and tortious interference with business relations. The court reviews the summary judgment de novo, requiring no genuine issues of material fact for the moving party to prevail. Britestarr's claims necessitate proof of damages, which it failed to substantiate. Notably, the reorganization plan does not reflect the market value of Britestarr’s property but rather serves as a mechanism for creditor satisfaction post-insolvency. Consequently, no triable issue was created regarding property value damage claims. On lost profits from a proposed power plant, expert testimony was deemed speculative due to unfounded assumptions about project financing and completion. The court emphasized that damages must be reasonably certain and directly linked to the alleged breach, citing Kenford Co. v. Erie County. Regarding the disbursement of funds from an escrow account to Britestarr’s president, David Norkin, the court agreed with the District Court that any procedural deficiencies did not harm Britestarr, as Norkin had full control over the accounts. Lastly, Britestarr's claim of tortious interference failed to identify any damaged business relationships, as Norkin had rejected an extension of option rights from ABB without evidence of other offers. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with all claims found to lack merit.