Landamerica 1031 exchange services inc liquidating trust who is jon mclaughlin dating

(D29.) The portion of Plaintiffs' proof of claim consisting of exchange deposits was considered a "Class 6 claim" and was allowed in the full amount of 1,187.27.

On April 3, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a proof of claim in which they sought, among other things, lost exchange deposits in the amount of 1,187.27, capital gains tax, lost profits from their failed exchange, and attorney's fees. Defendants have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that both claims fail in their entirety. In order to succeed on a claim under §1962(c), the plaintiff must demonstrate: "(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." Lum v.

landamerica 1031 exchange services inc liquidating trust-44

As a general practice, LES held these proceeds — or "exchange funds" — in a commingled account at Sun Trust Bank in Richmond, Virginia (referred to hereafter as the "commingled account" or "Account #3318"). (P65.) According to the minutes from LFG's Board of Directors meeting, the company did not view the illiquid ARSs as a "concern because the 1031 portfolio always has a base amount of money it is holding." (P65.) By September 2008, however, the total commingled fund portfolio was down to $318 million, $290.5 million of which consisted of the frozen ARSs. (D146.) Finally, LFG's Chairman and CEO Chandler wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry M. (P222.) Plaintiffs contend that, in effect, LES — with the assistance of LFG, the Defendants, and their overlapping officers and executives — was operating a fraudulent "Ponzi scheme." Plaintiffs insist that the exchange agreements were deceptive insofar as they failed to disclose that: exchange funds would not be "held" at a bank for the customer's benefit; LES could not "guarantee" the availability of the exchange funds for purposes of completing the customer's intended §1031 transactions; and LES was in fact on the verge of a financial collapse. Plaintiffs were also unaware that their funds had been deposited into LES's commingled account and that the funds could be used to satisfy LES's prior exchange obligations. Because of the large number of adversary proceedings filed against LES, the bankruptcy court issued a protocol order staying the litigation in all but five lead cases, which were selected to proceed on an expedited basis because they presented factual and legal issues common to other adversary proceedings. On April 15, 2009, the bankruptcy court ruled that funds deposited into segregated accounts of LES at Sun Trust Bank were property of LES's bankruptcy estate, not property of LES's customers.

(P96, P97.) That same month, outflows from the commingled account exceeded inflows by approximately $83 million, leaving LES only $7.2 million in net assets. Defendants contend that LFG's management acted in good faith at all times in an attempt to steer LES through an unprecedented global financial crisis and satisfy all of LES's §1031 exchange obligations. ." (Id.) On November 17, 2008, Plaintiffs closed the sale on their relinquished property. (P480.) As a result of LES's cessation of business operations, Plaintiffs were unable to complete their §1031 exchange transaction, and their 180-day exchange period lapsed on May 16, 2009.

(P98, P99, P102, P103.) Following the February 2008 ARS freeze, LFG's officers and directors explored a number of avenues for obtaining additional funds in an effort to remediate LES's liquidity deficit. 145-56.) Beginning in October 2008, LFG coordinated a transfer of ARSs to LTIC and CLTIC in exchange for approximately $70 million in liquid assets. Defendants deny that the post-ARS freeze transactions were fraudulent in any respect or that they were part of a "Ponzi scheme." Defendants maintain that, up until November 20, 2008 when FNF withdrew from the announced merger agreement, LFG's management felt confident that LES could continue to meet its customer obligations as they became due. 122-37 at 11-20.) In virtually all respects, the provisions of Plaintiffs' exchange agreement mirrored those of the form exchange agreement discussed above. 122-37 at 13.) Absent from Plaintiffs' agreement was the statement (present in the form exchange agreement): "Taxpayer acknowledges and agrees that the amount of the Exchange Funds may be in excess of the maximum amount of deposit insurance carried by the depository institution indicated above. LFG and LES filed their respective Chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on November 26, 2008.

To that end, LFG pursued cost-reduction measures and attempted to sell one of its subsidiary banks. In either case, it is undisputed that LFG's efforts to resolve LES's liquidity deficit were unsuccessful and, by late November 2008, LES could no longer continue its activities as a QI. (D2.) Two days later, LES and LFG filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions. 143, and Exhibits 1(a)-(e) thereto.) Plaintiffs chose LES to serve as the QI for their 2008 transaction based, in part, on LES's solid reputation and based partly on Plaintiffs' prior dealings with LES's predecessor company and with Alfred Watterson, an attorney employed by LTIC. One exception pertains to Paragraph 3(a) of Plaintiffs' exchange agreement, which stated: will receive interest on the Exchange Funds at an annualized rate equal to 100% of the intended Federal Funds Rate as announced by the Federal Open Market Committee less seventy five basis points (-75 bps), compounded daily, adjusting as the Federal Funds Rate does, one day following the same, during the Exchange Period (the "Growth Factor") from the first business day following (Pls.' Ex. (P1, P2.) Contemporaneously therewith, FNTIC and Chicago Title Insurance Company agreed to acquire the stock of LTIC and CLTIC, respectively.

Heffner , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice, Erica L. In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that LTIC, CLTIC, and LES — together with their parent company, Land America Financial Group, Inc. (P2.) Defendants LTIC and CLTIC had a physical presence in larger cities across the country and would offer LES's marketing materials to its customers in those locations. (Form Exchange Agreement ¶2(a) and (b).) In the interim, LES would have "sole and exclusive possession, dominion, control and use of all [e]xchange [f]unds," including any interest earned thereon. or otherwise obtain" same, during the pendency of the exchange period.

Calderas , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice & Michael J. In this civil action, Joseph and Gabriella Germinaro ("Plaintiffs") have sued Defendants Fidelity National Title Insurance Company ("FNTIC"), as successor to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ("LTIC"), and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("CLTIC") for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. ("LFG") and various corporate officers — operated a Ponzi scheme as part of a RICO "enterprise." Plaintiffs aver that, as part of this scheme, LTIC and CLTIC induced the Plaintiffs to entrust their money to LES while making misrepresentations about and/or fraudulently concealing the fact that: (a) LES was on the brink of insolvency; (b) Plaintiffs' funds were being commingled with those of other LES customers; (c) Plaintiffs' funds were being used to complete the exchanges of LES' pre-existing customers; and (d) Plaintiffs were at substantial risk of losing their funds by placing them with LES. Under this provision, the seller of an investment property (i.e., a "relinquished property") may defer his or her capital gains on the taxable proceeds of the sale ("exchange funds") if those funds are used to purchase a like-kind property (a "replacement property"). In order to obtain the tax deferral benefit provided by Section 1031, the property owner must not actually or constructively receive the proceeds of the sale of the relinquished property. (P70.) In the years preceding its bankruptcy, LES entered into thousands of exchange agreements with its customers (referred to at times as "exchangers"), a sample of which is included within Plaintiffs' appendix of exhibits. (Id.¶2(c).) The customer would have "no right, title, or interest in or to the [e]xchange [f]unds or any earnings thereon" and "no right, power, or option to demand . (Id.) Upon its receipt of the exchange funds, LES agreed to "deposit" the funds "in an account maintained at Sun Trust Bank in Richmond, Virginia." (Form Exchange Agmt. 122-5 at 6.) The ARS investments were not FDIC-insured. 122-5 at 6.) In February 2008, the ARS market froze and the ARSs in which LES had invested became illiquid. [LES] will not be able to liquidate its ARS until the issuer calls the security, a successful action occurs, a buyer is found outside of the auction process, or the security matures.

"Racketeering activity" includes predicate acts of federal mail fraud and wire fraud, as well as a host of other crimes, such as kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and dealing in controlled substances.

"To plead a pattern of racketeering activity, [Plaintiffs] must aver not only that each defendant committed at least two acts of prohibited racketeering activity but also that the predicate acts are related and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Hollis-Arrington v.

("LES"), a "qualified intermediary" under the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to November 26, 2008, when LFG and LES filed for bankruptcy (P1, P2), Theodore Lindy Chandler, Jr. 129-13.) Pamela Saylors ("Saylors") was an Executive Vice President for LTIC and CLTIC. Kolbe ("Kolbe") was the Senior Vice President and Government Affairs Counsel for LFG, LTIC and CLTIC. The SAC asserted eleven causes of action, including claims for fraud (Count 2), aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), RICO (Count 3), breach of fiduciary duty (Count 4), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 5), conversion (Count 6), aiding and abetting conversion (Count 7), intentional interference with a contract (Count 8), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 9), breach of contract (Count 10), and negligence (Count 11). On December 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a grant of summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.

In November 2008, as part of the §1031 exchange, Plaintiffs entrusted approximately 1,187 to Land America 1031 Exchange Services, Inc. (P3, P4.) During times relevant to this lawsuit, LFG and its various subsidiaries had a number of interlocking officers and directors. (D50, D51.) However, Plaintiffs, like other exchangers, were unable to recover the portion of their claim that related to the lost investment opportunity on their intended replacement property. After the case was removed to federal court, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC," Doc. 12), which remains the operative pleading in this matter. The Court subsequently granted the motion with respect to all counts in the SAC except for the RICO claims at Count 3. On May 13, 2016, the parties filed their cross-motions for summary judgment relative to the RICO claims (Doc. The parties have submitted extensive briefing and evidentiary materials in relation to the pending motions. As a result of the foregoing, the relevant issues are sufficiently joined and the motions are ripe for disposition. A factual dispute is "genuine" if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.

Subparagraph 6(a) stated that "LES has entered into this [e]xchange [a]greement with the intention of being a `qualified intermediary' within the meaning of [Treasury Regulation] Section 1.1031(k)-1(g)(4)(iii) . ¶6(b).) It acknowledged that the customer was executing the exchange agreement based on the advice of his or her legal and tax advisers. 122-20 at 6.) The ARSs that LES purchased consisted entirely of debt instruments backed by student loans, substantially all of which were guaranteed by the U. When the market froze, there was [a] liquidity crisis within LES. As of March 31, 2008, LES held approximately

Calderas , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice & Michael J. In this civil action, Joseph and Gabriella Germinaro ("Plaintiffs") have sued Defendants Fidelity National Title Insurance Company ("FNTIC"), as successor to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ("LTIC"), and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("CLTIC") for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. ("LFG") and various corporate officers — operated a Ponzi scheme as part of a RICO "enterprise." Plaintiffs aver that, as part of this scheme, LTIC and CLTIC induced the Plaintiffs to entrust their money to LES while making misrepresentations about and/or fraudulently concealing the fact that: (a) LES was on the brink of insolvency; (b) Plaintiffs' funds were being commingled with those of other LES customers; (c) Plaintiffs' funds were being used to complete the exchanges of LES' pre-existing customers; and (d) Plaintiffs were at substantial risk of losing their funds by placing them with LES. Under this provision, the seller of an investment property (i.e., a "relinquished property") may defer his or her capital gains on the taxable proceeds of the sale ("exchange funds") if those funds are used to purchase a like-kind property (a "replacement property"). In order to obtain the tax deferral benefit provided by Section 1031, the property owner must not actually or constructively receive the proceeds of the sale of the relinquished property. (P70.) In the years preceding its bankruptcy, LES entered into thousands of exchange agreements with its customers (referred to at times as "exchangers"), a sample of which is included within Plaintiffs' appendix of exhibits. (Id.¶2(c).) The customer would have "no right, title, or interest in or to the [e]xchange [f]unds or any earnings thereon" and "no right, power, or option to demand . (Id.) Upon its receipt of the exchange funds, LES agreed to "deposit" the funds "in an account maintained at Sun Trust Bank in Richmond, Virginia." (Form Exchange Agmt. 122-5 at 6.) The ARS investments were not FDIC-insured. 122-5 at 6.) In February 2008, the ARS market froze and the ARSs in which LES had invested became illiquid. [LES] will not be able to liquidate its ARS until the issuer calls the security, a successful action occurs, a buyer is found outside of the auction process, or the security matures. "Racketeering activity" includes predicate acts of federal mail fraud and wire fraud, as well as a host of other crimes, such as kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and dealing in controlled substances. "To plead a pattern of racketeering activity, [Plaintiffs] must aver not only that each defendant committed at least two acts of prohibited racketeering activity but also that the predicate acts are related and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Hollis-Arrington v. ("LES"), a "qualified intermediary" under the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to November 26, 2008, when LFG and LES filed for bankruptcy (P1, P2), Theodore Lindy Chandler, Jr. 129-13.) Pamela Saylors ("Saylors") was an Executive Vice President for LTIC and CLTIC. Kolbe ("Kolbe") was the Senior Vice President and Government Affairs Counsel for LFG, LTIC and CLTIC. The SAC asserted eleven causes of action, including claims for fraud (Count 2), aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), RICO (Count 3), breach of fiduciary duty (Count 4), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 5), conversion (Count 6), aiding and abetting conversion (Count 7), intentional interference with a contract (Count 8), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 9), breach of contract (Count 10), and negligence (Count 11). On December 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a grant of summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. In November 2008, as part of the §1031 exchange, Plaintiffs entrusted approximately $831,187 to Land America 1031 Exchange Services, Inc. (P3, P4.) During times relevant to this lawsuit, LFG and its various subsidiaries had a number of interlocking officers and directors. (D50, D51.) However, Plaintiffs, like other exchangers, were unable to recover the portion of their claim that related to the lost investment opportunity on their intended replacement property. After the case was removed to federal court, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC," Doc. 12), which remains the operative pleading in this matter. The Court subsequently granted the motion with respect to all counts in the SAC except for the RICO claims at Count 3. On May 13, 2016, the parties filed their cross-motions for summary judgment relative to the RICO claims (Doc. The parties have submitted extensive briefing and evidentiary materials in relation to the pending motions. As a result of the foregoing, the relevant issues are sufficiently joined and the motions are ripe for disposition. A factual dispute is "genuine" if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Subparagraph 6(a) stated that "LES has entered into this [e]xchange [a]greement with the intention of being a `qualified intermediary' within the meaning of [Treasury Regulation] Section 1.1031(k)-1(g)(4)(iii) . ¶6(b).) It acknowledged that the customer was executing the exchange agreement based on the advice of his or her legal and tax advisers. 122-20 at 6.) The ARSs that LES purchased consisted entirely of debt instruments backed by student loans, substantially all of which were guaranteed by the U. When the market froze, there was [a] liquidity crisis within LES. As of March 31, 2008, LES held approximately $1.8 billion, some $290.5 million of which was invested in the now frozen ARSs.

||

Calderas , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice & Michael J. In this civil action, Joseph and Gabriella Germinaro ("Plaintiffs") have sued Defendants Fidelity National Title Insurance Company ("FNTIC"), as successor to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ("LTIC"), and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("CLTIC") for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. ("LFG") and various corporate officers — operated a Ponzi scheme as part of a RICO "enterprise." Plaintiffs aver that, as part of this scheme, LTIC and CLTIC induced the Plaintiffs to entrust their money to LES while making misrepresentations about and/or fraudulently concealing the fact that: (a) LES was on the brink of insolvency; (b) Plaintiffs' funds were being commingled with those of other LES customers; (c) Plaintiffs' funds were being used to complete the exchanges of LES' pre-existing customers; and (d) Plaintiffs were at substantial risk of losing their funds by placing them with LES. Under this provision, the seller of an investment property (i.e., a "relinquished property") may defer his or her capital gains on the taxable proceeds of the sale ("exchange funds") if those funds are used to purchase a like-kind property (a "replacement property"). In order to obtain the tax deferral benefit provided by Section 1031, the property owner must not actually or constructively receive the proceeds of the sale of the relinquished property. (P70.) In the years preceding its bankruptcy, LES entered into thousands of exchange agreements with its customers (referred to at times as "exchangers"), a sample of which is included within Plaintiffs' appendix of exhibits. (Id.¶2(c).) The customer would have "no right, title, or interest in or to the [e]xchange [f]unds or any earnings thereon" and "no right, power, or option to demand . (Id.) Upon its receipt of the exchange funds, LES agreed to "deposit" the funds "in an account maintained at Sun Trust Bank in Richmond, Virginia." (Form Exchange Agmt. 122-5 at 6.) The ARS investments were not FDIC-insured. 122-5 at 6.) In February 2008, the ARS market froze and the ARSs in which LES had invested became illiquid. [LES] will not be able to liquidate its ARS until the issuer calls the security, a successful action occurs, a buyer is found outside of the auction process, or the security matures.

"Racketeering activity" includes predicate acts of federal mail fraud and wire fraud, as well as a host of other crimes, such as kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and dealing in controlled substances.

"To plead a pattern of racketeering activity, [Plaintiffs] must aver not only that each defendant committed at least two acts of prohibited racketeering activity but also that the predicate acts are related and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Hollis-Arrington v.

("LES"), a "qualified intermediary" under the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to November 26, 2008, when LFG and LES filed for bankruptcy (P1, P2), Theodore Lindy Chandler, Jr. 129-13.) Pamela Saylors ("Saylors") was an Executive Vice President for LTIC and CLTIC. Kolbe ("Kolbe") was the Senior Vice President and Government Affairs Counsel for LFG, LTIC and CLTIC. The SAC asserted eleven causes of action, including claims for fraud (Count 2), aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), RICO (Count 3), breach of fiduciary duty (Count 4), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 5), conversion (Count 6), aiding and abetting conversion (Count 7), intentional interference with a contract (Count 8), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 9), breach of contract (Count 10), and negligence (Count 11). On December 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a grant of summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.

In November 2008, as part of the §1031 exchange, Plaintiffs entrusted approximately $831,187 to Land America 1031 Exchange Services, Inc. (P3, P4.) During times relevant to this lawsuit, LFG and its various subsidiaries had a number of interlocking officers and directors. (D50, D51.) However, Plaintiffs, like other exchangers, were unable to recover the portion of their claim that related to the lost investment opportunity on their intended replacement property. After the case was removed to federal court, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC," Doc. 12), which remains the operative pleading in this matter. The Court subsequently granted the motion with respect to all counts in the SAC except for the RICO claims at Count 3. On May 13, 2016, the parties filed their cross-motions for summary judgment relative to the RICO claims (Doc. The parties have submitted extensive briefing and evidentiary materials in relation to the pending motions. As a result of the foregoing, the relevant issues are sufficiently joined and the motions are ripe for disposition. A factual dispute is "genuine" if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.

Subparagraph 6(a) stated that "LES has entered into this [e]xchange [a]greement with the intention of being a `qualified intermediary' within the meaning of [Treasury Regulation] Section 1.1031(k)-1(g)(4)(iii) . ¶6(b).) It acknowledged that the customer was executing the exchange agreement based on the advice of his or her legal and tax advisers. 122-20 at 6.) The ARSs that LES purchased consisted entirely of debt instruments backed by student loans, substantially all of which were guaranteed by the U. When the market froze, there was [a] liquidity crisis within LES. As of March 31, 2008, LES held approximately $1.8 billion, some $290.5 million of which was invested in the now frozen ARSs.

||

Calderas , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice & Michael J. In this civil action, Joseph and Gabriella Germinaro ("Plaintiffs") have sued Defendants Fidelity National Title Insurance Company ("FNTIC"), as successor to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ("LTIC"), and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("CLTIC") for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. ("LFG") and various corporate officers — operated a Ponzi scheme as part of a RICO "enterprise." Plaintiffs aver that, as part of this scheme, LTIC and CLTIC induced the Plaintiffs to entrust their money to LES while making misrepresentations about and/or fraudulently concealing the fact that: (a) LES was on the brink of insolvency; (b) Plaintiffs' funds were being commingled with those of other LES customers; (c) Plaintiffs' funds were being used to complete the exchanges of LES' pre-existing customers; and (d) Plaintiffs were at substantial risk of losing their funds by placing them with LES. Under this provision, the seller of an investment property (i.e., a "relinquished property") may defer his or her capital gains on the taxable proceeds of the sale ("exchange funds") if those funds are used to purchase a like-kind property (a "replacement property"). In order to obtain the tax deferral benefit provided by Section 1031, the property owner must not actually or constructively receive the proceeds of the sale of the relinquished property. (P70.) In the years preceding its bankruptcy, LES entered into thousands of exchange agreements with its customers (referred to at times as "exchangers"), a sample of which is included within Plaintiffs' appendix of exhibits. (Id.¶2(c).) The customer would have "no right, title, or interest in or to the [e]xchange [f]unds or any earnings thereon" and "no right, power, or option to demand . (Id.) Upon its receipt of the exchange funds, LES agreed to "deposit" the funds "in an account maintained at Sun Trust Bank in Richmond, Virginia." (Form Exchange Agmt. 122-5 at 6.) The ARS investments were not FDIC-insured. 122-5 at 6.) In February 2008, the ARS market froze and the ARSs in which LES had invested became illiquid. [LES] will not be able to liquidate its ARS until the issuer calls the security, a successful action occurs, a buyer is found outside of the auction process, or the security matures.

"Racketeering activity" includes predicate acts of federal mail fraud and wire fraud, as well as a host of other crimes, such as kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and dealing in controlled substances.

"To plead a pattern of racketeering activity, [Plaintiffs] must aver not only that each defendant committed at least two acts of prohibited racketeering activity but also that the predicate acts are related and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Hollis-Arrington v.

("LES"), a "qualified intermediary" under the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to November 26, 2008, when LFG and LES filed for bankruptcy (P1, P2), Theodore Lindy Chandler, Jr. 129-13.) Pamela Saylors ("Saylors") was an Executive Vice President for LTIC and CLTIC. Kolbe ("Kolbe") was the Senior Vice President and Government Affairs Counsel for LFG, LTIC and CLTIC. The SAC asserted eleven causes of action, including claims for fraud (Count 2), aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), RICO (Count 3), breach of fiduciary duty (Count 4), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 5), conversion (Count 6), aiding and abetting conversion (Count 7), intentional interference with a contract (Count 8), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 9), breach of contract (Count 10), and negligence (Count 11). On December 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a grant of summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.

.8 billion, some 0.5 million of which was invested in the now frozen ARSs.

Tags: , ,