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.
This MCLE has expired.

Contracts
Breach of Contract

Marc Del Piero, Bankruptcy Trustee v. Lap Tang, Ha Ly

Published: May 13, 2017 | Result Date: Apr. 3, 2017 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2013-1-CV-254614 Verdict –  $3,110,000

Court

Santa Clara Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James L. Hand
(Victorian Legal Center)


Defendant

Ismael D. Perez
(Law Offices of Ismael D. Perez)

Mark K. Suzumoto

Demas W. Yan
(Law Office of Demas W. Yan)


Facts

Marc Del Piero, bankruptcy trustee for the Estate of Hai & Lieng Truong, substituted-in for Hai Truong shortly before trial began. Truong's claims belonged to his bankruptcy estate. The Trustee alleged Lap Tang and Ha Ly, principals of TWN Investment Group LLC, owed $2 million plus prejudgment interest to Hai Truong because they signed guarantees with United Commercial Bank that they would refund buyer deposits for units not built at Vietnam Town on Story Road in San Jose. Truong had put down a $2 million deposit in 2006. TWN entered bankruptcy in 2012.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Truong is a third party beneficiary of Tang and Ly's promise to the bank to repay buyer deposits. The bank was worried that buyer deposits may be liens with priority to the bank's construction loan. Del Piero also alleged that Lap Tang is the alter ego of TWN. TWN's only creditors in bankruptcy were Vietnamese people who had put down deposits to buy the 210 commercial condos TWN was building on Story Road in San Jose on an old HP site.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
That Truong was just an incidental beneficiary, not a creditor beneficiary, to Tang and Ly's promise to the bank to repay buyer deposits. Tang contended TWN was adequately funded.

Settlement Discussions

At the first settlement conference, defendants made no offer. At the second settlement conference, defendants made a settlement offer of $275,000 (collectively), which plaintiff accepted, but then defendants refused to sign.

Damages

Truong's loss of his $2 million deposit.

Result

The court found the buyers were intended beneficiaries of Tang and Ly's promise to repay buyer deposits, as such it found no need to pierce the corporate veil.

Other Information

The judgment proceeds will pay Hai Truong's creditors 100 percent and pay the trustee's statutory fee, but most of it will be distributed to Hai Truong and his wife. FILING DATE: Oct. 16, 2013.


#113418

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

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