Insight Tech. v. Freightcheck

58 Citing cases

  1. In re Friedman's Inc.

    385 B.R. 381 (S.D. Ga. 2008)   Cited 11 times

    The Trustee concedes that no Georgia state court has recognized explicitly a claim for aiding and abetting fraud. But he points to Insight Technology, Inc. v. Freightcheck, LLC, 280 Ga.App. 19, 23, 633 S.E.2d 373 (2006), which held one may bring a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. He also cites to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-30 which provides:

  2. Aliera LT, LLC v. Health Reform Team, Inc. (In re The Aliera Cos.)

    21-11548 (TMH) (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 1, 2024)

    To bring a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant must have, inter alia, "acted to procure a breach of the primary wrongdoer's fiduciary duty to the plaintiff." Insight Tech., Inc. v. FreightCheck, LLC, 633 S.E.2d 373, 379 (Ga.Ct.App. 2006) (emphasis added). Additionally, an action for civil conspiracy requires proof of the "underlying tort," which in this case is aiding and abetting fiduciary duty.

  3. Siavage v. Gandy

    350 Ga. App. 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    "The tort of fraud has five elements: a false representation by a defendant, scienter, intention to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting, justifiable reliance by plaintiff, and damage to plaintiff."Insight Technology v. FreightCheck , 280 Ga. App. 19, 28 (5), 633 S.E.2d 373 (2006) (citation and punctuation omitted). Although fraud must be pled with particularity under OCGA § 9-11-9 (b), a complaint alleging fraud should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the pleader can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Rather than move to dismiss, a defendant seeking greater particularity

  4. Wright v. Apartment Inv. & Mgmt. Co.

    315 Ga. App. 587 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that derivative claims for punitive damages and attorney fees failed when underlying tort claims failed

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Insight Tech., Inc. v. FreightCheck, LLC, 280 Ga.App. 19, 25(1)(a), n. 12, 633 S.E.2d 373 (2006). ] (3) the defendant's wrongful conduct procured a breach of the primary wrongdoer's fiduciary duty; and (4) the defendant's tortious conduct proximately caused damage to the plaintiff.

  5. U.S. Capital Funding VI, Ltd. v. Patterson Bankshares, Inc.

    137 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (S.D. Ga. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that plaintiff could prove that it was damaged as a proximate result of the director defendants' breach of fiduciary duty through evidence that the alleged improper transfer by the defendants "left [the plaintiff] without the ability to look to that asset as a source of funds for repayment"

    An action is “malicious” when it is taken “with the knowledge of [the] plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to interfere therewith.” Insight Tech., Inc. v. FreightCheck, LLC, 280 Ga.App. 19, 633 S.E.2d 373, 379 (2006).

  6. Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.

    675 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 159 times
    Finding that plaintiff failed to show agency relationship between parent and subsidiary where the plaintiffs alleged that the parent invested in the subsidiary, continued to do business with the subsidiary through the case, and advised the subsidiary on the subject of profitability, and that the allegations "amount[ed] to nothing more than the usual concomitants of the relationship between a parent and a partially-owned subsidiary"

    Ga.Code Ann. § 51–12–30. The Georgia statute is “inclusive and not limited to particular torts,” Insight Tech., Inc. v. FreightCheck, LLC, 280 Ga.App. 19, 633 S.E.2d 373, 378 (2006), so there is no reason to think that Georgia courts would not recognize aiding and abetting liability predicated on conversion. The parties have not addressed the topic of whether Egyptian law recognizes aiding and abetting liability and, if so, the contours of the Egyptian doctrine.

  7. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. One Sixty Over Ninety, LLC.

    351 Ga. App. 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (Citation omitted.) Insight Technology v. FreightCheck , 280 Ga. App. 19, 27 (3), 633 S.E.2d 373 (2006). After review of One Sixty’s complaint in view of "the liberal notice pleading requirements codified at OCGA § 9-11-8 (a) (2) (A)," we cannot find that the Board has demonstrated that One Sixty "could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief sought."

  8. GSR Mkts. v. McDonald

    593 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (N.D. Ga. 2022)

    by proof that: (1) through improper action or wrongful conduct and without privilege, the defendant acted to procure a breach of the primary wrongdoer's fiduciary duty to the plaintiff; (2) with knowledge that the primary wrongdoer owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty, the defendant acted purposely and with malice and the intent to injure; (3) the defendant's wrongful conduct procured a breach of the primary wrongdoer's fiduciary duty; and (4) the defendant's tortious conduct proximately caused damage to the plaintiff. Intelligent Investment Int'l LLC v. Fu , 2019 WL 1281204, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2019) (quoting Insight Tech., Inc. v. FreightCheck, L.L.C. , 280 Ga.App. 19, 633 S.E.2d 373, 379 (2006) ). As stated, such a claim requires evidence the defendant "acted to procure a breach" of the fiduciary duty.

  9. Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc.

    108 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (N.D. Ga. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    In Peterson, this Court held that the plaintiffs could not assert a claim under the GCSPA because none of the alleged injuries or illegal conduct occurred in Georgia.

    Accordingly, Aaron's, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claim should be denied. 280 Ga.App. 19, 633 S.E.2d 373 (2006).See id. at 23, 633 S.E.2d 373.

  10. Schinazi v. Eden

    338 Ga. App. 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    The Trust agreement authorized Schinazi to deposit property into the Trust, and he initially funded it with a $500,000 gift. Although the Trust was irrevocable, SchinaziInsight Technology v. FreightCheck , 280 Ga.App. 19, 20, 633 S.E.2d 373 (2006) (citation and punctuation omitted).expressly reserve[d] the right, exercisable in a nonfiduciary capacity without the approval or consent of any person in a fiduciary capacity, during [his] lifetime to reacquire any part or all of the property of any trust created hereunder by substituting property of equivalent value.