From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aldoro, Inc. v. Gold Force Intl. Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2008
52 A.D.3d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 3795.

June 3, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered November 28, 2007, which, in an action arising out of the sale of goods, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to plaintiff to replead its fraud claims against the individual defendants, and denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint so as to allege breach of fiduciary duty and the aiding and abetting of that breach, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Noel W. Hauser and Associates, New York (Noel W. Hauser of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Schneider Goldstein Bloomfield LLP, New York (Donald F. Schneider of counsel), for respondents-appellants, and Gold Force International Ltd, respondent.

Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Richard A. Lafont of counsel), for ABN Amro Bank N.V., respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Gonzalez, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.


The sole theory underlying plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim, the so-called "trust fund doctrine," under which persons in control of an insolvent corporation must hold the corporation's remaining assets in trust for the benefit of its creditors, cannot be invoked by a "simple contract creditor" like plaintiff, who has not yet obtained a judgment on the debt and had execution returned unsatisfied ( Credit Agricole Indosuez v Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 NY2d 541, 549-550). As plaintiff does not have a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the debtor defendant and its principals, it cannot have claims against the other defendants for aiding and abetting that breach. Plaintiff, however, was properly granted leave to replead fraud claims against the individual defendants alleging that when they gave plaintiff postdated checks in payment for the goods, they knew that their company was insolvent and that the checks would not be paid on presentment ( see Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954). We have considered plaintiff's other claims and arguments and find them without merit.

[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 33821(U).]


Summaries of

Aldoro, Inc. v. Gold Force Intl. Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2008
52 A.D.3d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Aldoro, Inc. v. Gold Force Intl. Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:ALDORO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. GOLD FORCE INTERNATIONAL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 3, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4930
859 N.Y.S.2d 154

Citing Cases

Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Zinn

Officers and directors owe no duty, however, to creditors "having no cognizable interest in the debtor's…

New Gold Equities Corp. v. Valoc Enters., Inc.

In addition, a "simple contract creditor may not invoke the [trust fund] doctrine to reach transferred assets…