In 2012, the two defendant developers presented to the plaintiffs, a financial statement purporting to show that the defendants’ company (“A”) had assets of more than $200 million. Based thereon, the plaintiffs loaned “A” $3 million. The interest was to be $2 million. The court stated that “apparently in an attempt to avoid usury issues, the deal was structured so that plaintiffs were to provide consulting services and receive several hundred thousand dollars in consulting fees.”

The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs never perform the services. However, the court noted that “subsequent events have rendered this claim moot.”

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]