Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

In the Courts

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
August 02, 2015

Judge Orders $2.9 Million Payment to Company to Offset Embezzlement

A roofing company has won a $2.9 million civil judgment against a former Connecticut employee who allegedly embezzled nearly $1 million to pay for his personal expenses.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Meyer on June 22 granted a motion for summary judgment in the case of Nations Roof LLC et al vs. Claude Carnahan. Carnahan had been the company's regional controller prior to his termination. Meyer found the plaintiffs to be entitled to treble the stolen amount of $984,057, in damages, plus prejudgment interest. Meyer gave Carnahan credit for the $115,636 he has repaid already. The judge did not award punitive damages.

“The court believes that the award of treble damages is sufficient to fully compensate plaintiffs for the harm they suffered, particularly in light of the fact that [Carnahan] has not amplified plaintiffs' litigation costs by opposing summary judgment in this action,” Meyer wrote in his decision.

In granting the motion for summary judgment, Meyer noted there is no genuine issue of fact for trial.

Attorney Frank Silvestri Jr. of Verrill Dana in Westport, CT, who represents Nations Roof, said, “The judge granted what we requested, to which there was no real objection.” Silvestri declined to comment further on the case or the judge's decision. The company's 2014 lawsuit had sought treble damages for statutory theft, and made claims of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty.

Nations Roof, of Lithia Springs, GA, hired Carnahan, of Westport, in 2003, and he later became its regional controller. His role involved bookkeeping and accounting, and his duties meant he was authorized to issue and sign company checks. He was also required to maintain accurate books, records, ledgers and check registers for the company.

In his ruling, Meyer noted that the theft occurred over a period of about seven years.

U.S. District Court records show no federal criminal charges pending against Carnahan, and there is nothing on the Connecticut Judicial Branch's website referencing any state charges. The U.S. Attorney's Office and Federal Bureau of Investigation in Connecticut and Georgia indicated they had no charges pending. ' Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, The Connecticut Law Tribune

'

Judge Orders $2.9 Million Payment to Company to Offset Embezzlement

A roofing company has won a $2.9 million civil judgment against a former Connecticut employee who allegedly embezzled nearly $1 million to pay for his personal expenses.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Meyer on June 22 granted a motion for summary judgment in the case of Nations Roof LLC et al vs. Claude Carnahan. Carnahan had been the company's regional controller prior to his termination. Meyer found the plaintiffs to be entitled to treble the stolen amount of $984,057, in damages, plus prejudgment interest. Meyer gave Carnahan credit for the $115,636 he has repaid already. The judge did not award punitive damages.

“The court believes that the award of treble damages is sufficient to fully compensate plaintiffs for the harm they suffered, particularly in light of the fact that [Carnahan] has not amplified plaintiffs' litigation costs by opposing summary judgment in this action,” Meyer wrote in his decision.

In granting the motion for summary judgment, Meyer noted there is no genuine issue of fact for trial.

Attorney Frank Silvestri Jr. of Verrill Dana in Westport, CT, who represents Nations Roof, said, “The judge granted what we requested, to which there was no real objection.” Silvestri declined to comment further on the case or the judge's decision. The company's 2014 lawsuit had sought treble damages for statutory theft, and made claims of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty.

Nations Roof, of Lithia Springs, GA, hired Carnahan, of Westport, in 2003, and he later became its regional controller. His role involved bookkeeping and accounting, and his duties meant he was authorized to issue and sign company checks. He was also required to maintain accurate books, records, ledgers and check registers for the company.

In his ruling, Meyer noted that the theft occurred over a period of about seven years.

U.S. District Court records show no federal criminal charges pending against Carnahan, and there is nothing on the Connecticut Judicial Branch's website referencing any state charges. The U.S. Attorney's Office and Federal Bureau of Investigation in Connecticut and Georgia indicated they had no charges pending. ' Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, The Connecticut Law Tribune

'

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
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.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

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.