This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Partnership
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Dennis Carlston v. Henry Grausz, Gene Farber

Published: Dec. 13, 1997 | Result Date: Nov. 4, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 158675 –  $5,200,000

Judge

Lynn Duryee

Court

Marin Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William H.G. Norman


Defendant

Arthur J. Shartsis


Experts

Plaintiff

Stephen Boulac
(technical)

Randy Sugarman
(technical)

Peter J. Benvenutti Jr.
(Keller, Benvenutti & Kim LLP) (technical)

Defendant

Brian Minnihan
(technical)

Facts

In April 1991, a limited partnership named GFI Commercial Mortgage L.P. was formed. The general partner was GFI Mortgage Acquisition Corporation (General Partner) whose two co-equal shareholders were defendant Henry Grausz (Grausz) and defendant Gene Farber (Farber). The plaintiffs were limited partners of the Partnership. The purpose of the Partnership was to acquire a mortgage loan portfolio and to profit from the income stream it generated. The portfolio was acquired through the use of investment capital provided by the partners and with money supplied by certain institutional bondholders which purchased bonds issued by the limited partnership. The Partnership assets also included the underlying mortgage obligations in the loan portfolio and their replacements, including a mortgage obligation secured by property in London County, Virginia and owned by Washington International University in Virginia. The land in Virginia had $5 million of equity over and above the balance owed on the Promissory Note. That note fell into default and the debtor offered title to the land (and hence the net equity) in full satisfaction of the note and the guarantee. Grausz personally borrowed enough money to pay off the note balance with the title being transferred to an affiliate company rather than the Partnership. The plaintiffs brought this action against defendants based on breach of fiduciary duty and conversion theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for resignation of the General Partner and, according to defendant, demanded that defendant relinquish ownership of the property without being reimbursed for the purchase and development expense. The defendant demanded plaintiff pay $1.2 million in attorney fees to defendant.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $10 million in economic damages.

Result

POST TRIAL MOTIONS: Defendant has filed an appeal.

Other Information

The judgment was entered approximately four years and two months after the case was filed. A mediation was held on Feb. 18, 1997, before Thomas Jenkins of JAMS/Endispute. It did not resolve the mater. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's bankruptcy expert, Peter Benvenutti, testified that it was a breach of the General Partner's fiduciary duty not to place the Partnership into a Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy so that the negative cash flow caused by defendants could be avoided through a cramdown reorganization of the bond debt.

Length

two weeks


#113036

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390