Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
June 27, 2006

Deepening Insolvency Is Not A Valid Theory of Damages For Negligence

The Third Circuit has dismissed a Chapter 7 trustee's malpractice and 'deepening insolvency' claims against the accounting firm for the debtor. The court found that the malpractice claim failed because the company was not harmed by its accountants' actions, and also because the deepening-insolvency claim was insufficiently supported by mere allegations of negligent conduct. Seitz v. Detweiler, Hershey and Associates PC (In re CitX Corp.), No. 05-2760 (May 26).

The founder of an Internet company, CitX Corp., began pillaging it almost immediately after it was founded in 1996. He used corporate funds to license his own intellectual property, cover his debts, and settle one of his lawsuits. In 1999, CitX joined with Professional Resources International Inc. to create an Internet shopping mall for home-based merchants who would pay a fee to be featured. CitX used this relationship, along with some help from the Internet Bubble to sell equity in itself. Unfortunately, PRSI was a fraudulent enterprise, and CitX's stock sales were illegal under federal and Pennsylvania law. The result was that PRSI scammed nearly $18 million from would-be online merchants, and CitX received about $700,000 of this money. The Florida Attorney General shut down PRSI in January 2000, and a receiver was appointed. PRSI was CitX's only significant client, and at the time PRSI was closed it owed CitX over $2.4 million. According to CitX's records, although this relationship was the only thing keeping the company theoretically viable, because CitX showed a positive balance sheet, it was also able to sell more that $1 million worth of additional securities.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?