11th Circuit Revives Legal Malpractice, Conspiracy Claims Against Miller & Martin
The appellate court said there was enough evidence to allow legal malpractice and civil conspiracy claims to go forward, but it upheld U.S. District Judge Mark Cohen's dismissal of other claims filed by an investment group that sued after the collapse of a startup company whose founder and CEO looted the business.
July 05, 2018 at 02:59 PM
6 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has revived legal malpractice and civil conspiracy claims against Miller & Martin, ruling that the trial court erred in tossing out the claims, which were assigned to an investment group as part of its settlement with a failed tech startup. The appellate panel, however, upheld dismissals by Judge Mark Cohen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia of claims for fraudulent concealment and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The unpublished July 3 opinion was penned by Senior Judge Paul Huck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation, with the concurrence of Eleventh Circuit Judges Gerald Tjoflat and Adalberto Jordan. As detailed in the opinion and other filings, the case began in 2010 when Lucky Capital Management made the not-so-lucky decision to invest $2.5 million in nValeo, billed by founder and CEO Jeffrey Ritchie as an “on demand virtual video delivery system.” The startup retained Miller & Martin to provide legal services on an hourly basis, which were primarily handled by partner W. Scott McGinnis and R. Tyler Hand of the firm's Chattanooga office. (Hand has since left the firm and is now with Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis in Chattanooga.) Lucky first invested $500,000 for a 2 percent share of the company, then made four more $500,000 investments for an additional 9 percent share. The membership purchase agreement limited the compensation of nValeo's officers and barred any bonuses for them, but it did not prohibit the company from loaning its officers money. The agreement contained a provision “disclosing the lack of a financial track record and the 'substantial investment risks' in purchasing the membership interests,” Huck wrote for the appellate panel. “Despite this, Lucky did not inspect nValeo's books before investing.” “The parties acknowledge that almost immediately after Lucky's funds were deposited in nValeo's bank account," the opinion said. Ritchie, the CEO, "began withdrawing those funds for his own personal use." In late 2010, nValeo's Chief Operations Officer Buddy Poole sent the lawyers an email asking them to draw up a promissory note to record Ritchie's withdrawals, which “purported to allow nValeo to loan Ritchie up to $2 million.” In 2011, one of Lucky's principal partners reviewed nValeo's financial records “for the first time” and confronted Ritchie about the withdrawals. “Ritchie admitted that he took over $800,000 and used at least part of the money for personal use,” the opinion said. “nValeo never brought a product to market and went out of business.” Lucky lost its investment and sued nValeo. As part of a settlement in that case, nValeo assigned to Lucky “any legal malpractice claim it might have against Miller & Martin.” In 2014, Lucky sued Miller & Martin, asserting claims for legal malpractice, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, procuring a breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and statutory damages for bad faith. In separate rulings in 2015 and 2016, Cohen dismissed all the claims. Regarding the legal malpractice claim, Cohen ruled that Georgia law prohibited the assignment of such claims. The relevant portion of the statute, OCGA 44-12-24, said “a right of action is assignable if it involves, directly or indirectly, a right of property. A right of action … for injuries arising from fraud to the assignor may not be assigned.” But the appeals panel noted that, subsequent to the suit's filing but before its dismissal, the General Assembly amended that code section to bar the assignment of legal malpractice claims. Cohen's ruling did not address whether that revision is retroactive, and the point was not raised on appeal. Cohen had ruled that the malpractice claim was barred because Lucky's “alleged injuries arise out of fraud to nValeo,” the opinion said. But Lucky argued that the claim was not for fraud “but upon a claim that Miller & Martin was negligent in failing to report to nValeo Ritchie's misappropriation of funds and in drafting a promissory note for Ritchie, which allegedly led Ritchie to believe that he could continue to misappropriate nValeo's assets.” “A close examination of Lucky's malpractice claim shows that it is assignable because it is based on Miller & Martin's alleged professional negligence,” Huck wrote. Nowhere in that count, wrote Huck, “does Lucky mention, much less specifically allege, the elements of a fraud claim against Miller & Martin.” The opinion also said Cohen erred in dismissing the civil conspiracy claim after concluding that its underlying cause of action, the fraudulent concealment claim, was not supported. While Cohen rightly dismissed the fraudulent concealment claim, wrote Huck, he should have allowed the conspiracy claim to go forward. “Here,” he wrote, “Lucky has sufficiently pleaded that Miller & Martin entered into a conspiracy with Ritchie to defraud Lucky and conceal Ritchie's fraud.” In addition to dismissing the fraudulent concealment claim, Huck wrote, Cohen was also correct to dismiss the claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty “because Lucky identified no evidence that Miller & Martin was aware of Ritchie's misappropriations or acted with malice and intent to injure Lucky.” Miller & Martin is represented by Shane Keith and Ryan Mock Jr. of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, William Davis of Bovis, Kyle, Burch & Medlin, and Robert Marcovitch of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith. Lucky is represented by solo August Winter of Brentwood, Tennessee, and Jenny Jensen of Duluth's Jensen Firm. Jensen said she did not have permission to discuss the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Paragraph V Displaced Lathrop': High Court Mulls Sovereign Immunity Waiver Disputes
7 minute read11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
State Appeals Court 'Reluctantly' Remands $1.7B Punitive Damages, Sanctions Against Ford for Fatal Rollover
High Court to Weigh If Amended Complaints Establish Sovereign Immunity Waiver
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250