On behalf of the client, FLP sued defendants, directors of a corporation, to recover over $1.3 million in state court for breach of fiduciary duty owed to creditors. 232 Grand Blvd., LLC v. Maeda et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01156788. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, but lost to FLP’s opposition. Defendants then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Court of Appeal, but after considering FLP’s opposition the writ too was denied. Maeda v The Superior Court of Orange County, Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Case No. G061850.

FLP’s judgment creditor client Remares Global, LLC levied, pre-petition, on about $3,033,215.05 that debtor fraudulently transferred to his irrevocable trust. The trustee asserted Remares was entirely unsecured and that all was property of the bankruptcy estate. To protect Remares’ interests, FLP then requested, and the court allowed, Remares to intervene in the trustee’s avoidance action. The Court then granted Remares’ motion for summary judgment finding $482,780.07 of the $3.25 million was not property of the Estate because the funds were in college savings accounts. FLP further successfully opposed the trustee’s motion for summary judgment attempting to find Remares as unsecured. FLP then negotiated a settlement with the trustee which gave Remares 50% of the remaining $2,550,434.98 (i.e., $1,275,217.49).

FLP attorney Alan Forsley obtained an $865,000 judgment, including attorney fees, for its plaintiff client. Forsley then defeated defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and proceeded to collect 100% of the judgment plus interest and attorney’s fees through a sale of real defendant’s estate, totaling over $1 million. FLP then successfully defeated defendant’s appeal on the grounds that the judgment had been satisfied in full. Chen v. Lynch, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No. B307279.

Debtor’s 2009 Chapter 11 case was closed after consummation of her confirmed plan by prior counsel. Notwithstanding the confirmed plan, two pre-petition law firms each obtained $500,000 judgments against Debtor and recorded liens against her multi-million home. In 2021, FLP’s lead attorney Alan Forsley successfully reopened Debtor’s case and filed motions seeking an order granting Debtor’s discharge under the bankruptcy Code’s hardship provisions and the removal judgment creditor’s liens. After discovery and hotly contested motions, FLP obtained an order granting Debtor’s discharge and removing the judgment creditors’ liens against her home. In re Montero, 2:09-bk-37943-WB.

FLP’s client was forced out of two LLCs and denied any further distributions, so he filed a lawsuit against each LLC and their managing members. The client then substituted FLP into the cases as his counsel. After defeating the majority members’ motions to cause both lawsuits to be arbitrated, the parties attended mediation and settled with the managing members buying out FLP’s client’s minority membership interests at very favorable terms.

On behalf of the client, FLP sued defendants, directors of a corporation, to recover over $1.3 million in state court for breach of fiduciary duty owed to creditors. 232 Grand Blvd., LLC v. Maeda et al. Orange County Superior Court CaseNo. 30-2020-01156788. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, but lost to FLP’s opposition. Defendants then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Court of Appeal, but the writ too was denied. Maeda v The Superior Court of Orange County, Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Case No. G060070.

Confronted with 16 alter ego creditors from a failed $60 million wholesale pie baking company, who claimed they were owed over $5 million, FLP’s clients filed Chapter 11 to have the alter ego creditor claims heard in the bankruptcy court. At mediation, Debtors settled the 16 alter ego creditor claims. On April 8, 2021, the bankruptcy court confirmed Debtor’s plan of reorganization, which involved over $5 million in unsecured claims, including millions of dollars in guarantee claims. In re Bonert, 2:19-bk-20836-ER.

FLP obtained another fee award for its debtor client after the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit sustained the client’s objections to the creditor’s $5 million in claims. This $20,527.50 award was the fourth fee order in favor of the same client. The U.S. District Court affirmed the fee order. Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Darin Davis, Case No. 2:20-cv-03492-RGK.

Confronted with a multi-million dollar adverse judgment and unable to afford an appeal bond, FLP’s client filed Chapter 11 to protect her assets during the pendency of her appeal. On January 28, 2021, the court confirmed Debtor’s plan of reorganization, which involved over $55 million in unsecured claims, including millions of dollars in claims held by overseas creditors. In re Trinh, 2:18-bk-11475-RK.

On behalf of the debtor client, FLP obtained a $92,347.79 fee award against the creditor and prevailed in objecting to creditor’s $5 million in proofs of claim, both of which were affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. FLP then defended creditor’s further appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where the orders were again unanimously affirmed. Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Darin Davis, Case Nos. 19-60036 & 19-60061

FLP’s debtor client prevailed on his objections to a creditor’s two proofs of claim totaling $5 million. The creditor appealed. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision disallowing the claims in their entirety. All briefs written and argued by Alan W. Forsley. Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Darin Davis, BAP No. CC-19-1116-TaLS.

FLP prevailed at trial on behalf of a Debtor against whom a creditor alleged fraud in connection with its $1 million claim. The bankruptcy court ordered the creditor to pay FLP’s client $92,347.79 in attorney fees. In a unanimous opinion, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s attorney fee award. Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Darin Davis, BAP No. CC-18-1326-FLKu.

Creditor appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision on two trials finding in favor of FLP’s client on creditor’s claims to deny debtor’s discharge entirely, or to deny creditor’s $1 million alleged debt. In a unanimous opinion, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision for both trials. Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Darin Davis, BAP Nos. CC-18-1158-FKuta & CC-18-1163 FKuta.

A creditor sued to prevent the discharge of its $1 million alleged debt under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2). FLP’s Alan Forsley defeated the creditor’s non-dischargeability claim, and the bankruptcy court then ordered the creditor to pay FLP’s client’s attorneys’ fees of $92,347.79 based on the broad attorney fee provision in the contract on which the creditor sued. Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Darin Davis, 1:10-ap-1354-VK.

A creditor sued to prevent the discharge of its $1 million alleged debt under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2) based upon findings of fact in a state court judgment and witness testimony. In a multi-day trial, FLP’s Alan Forsley defeated the creditor’s claim that Debtor fraudulently caused it to enter into a construction contract and resulting damages. In a 24-page nuanced opinion, the bankruptcy court found in favor of FLP’s client on every disputed issue of fact and law. Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Darin Davis, 1:10-ap-1354-VK.

On April 20, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (2d Appellate Dist.) affirmed a ruling in favor of Joel D. Kettler, a client of FLP’s Howard Fredman, who had sued Leslie and Susan Gould, the son and daughter-in-law of elderly clients, for falsely accusing Kettler of embezzlement and financial elder abuse. Those accusations were made by the Goulds to the Certified Financial Planners Board of Standards (the “CFP Board”) and to Kettler’s employer. In a published decision, the Court of Appeal made two significant rulings under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Court held the statute did not apply to claims made to the CFP Board because that was not an official proceeding authorized by law, and because the alleged conduct was not a matter of public interest but only affected those directly involved. The Court also held that making defamatory accusations to Mr. Kettler’s employer 11 months before suing the employer was not protected by the Litigation Privilege or the SLAPP statute because nothing suggested that the Goulds were contemplating bringing a lawsuit against the employer when they made their accusations and because nothing the Goulds said was in furtherance of the objects of the litigation brought 11 months later. The published opinion appears at 2018 WL 1887345.

FLP’s landlord client leased his commercial premises to a retail business tenant, with the lease personally guaranteed by the principal of the tenant. When the business failed, landlord sued under the lease to recover $798,443.84, plus attorneys’ fees, costs and interest from the guarantor. Fearing the guarantor would abscond with her assets while the lawsuit was pending, FLP, on behalf of the landlord, obtained a court order for a $798,443.84 writ of attachment, permitting the seizure of guarantor’s financial accounts pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

FLP’s clients guaranteed a business line of credit. When the business defaulted, the lender sued our clients to recover the loan balance, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. After defeating lender’s motion for summary judgment, FLP settled the case for a reduction in the principal owed, no payment of attorneys’ fees, costs or interest, with the settlement amount to be paid over 48 months with no interest.

FLP clients were doctors who had invested their retirement savings with a developer to fund multiple commercial and residential projects. The doctors sued the developer in separate state court lawsuits for improperly using their invested funds in other projects and to support his lifestyle, rather than for the purpose for which the investments were solicited. Before the state court trial in one case and during the appeal of the other case, the developer filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

FLP sued the developer in the bankruptcy court to prevent him from discharging the doctors’ claims. Working closely with state court and appellate counsel, FLP crafted bankruptcy-specific findings tracking the bankruptcy code’s non-dischargeabilty requirements. FLP’s clients then prevailed on separate summary judgment motions, based on developer’s fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. FLP’s work with state court and appellate counsel allowed its clients to prevail cost-effectively by avoiding the expense of duplicative discovery and the delay and uncertainty of additional litigation, including a trial in the bankruptcy court.

A subcontractor sued FLP’s client, an individual home builder, for fraud and misrepresentation in state court which caused the home builder to file bankruptcy. The subcontractor then filed an adversary action in the bankruptcy court to deny the home builder’s discharge based on alleged false and misleading statements made in connection with the bankruptcy. FLP’s Alan Forsley defended the home builder in the ensuing bankruptcy court trial. After 11 years of litigation in the state court and bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of the home builder.

Representing the receiver in a shareholder dispute, the receiver recovered $1.1 million after prevailing on appeal to the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and obtaining dismissal of appellant’s subsequent appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In re MBE Digital, 9th Cir. BAP Case No. CC-16-1121 and 9th Cir. Court of Appeals Case No. 16-60093.

On behalf of a judgment-debtor law firm in disputes with multiple creditors, FLP filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition after the largest creditor obtained an assignment order against the law firm’s receivables which, if executed, would have caused the law firm to shut down. The bankruptcy afforded the client the time it needed to reorganize its affairs, resolve disputed claims, pay certain creditors over 60 months, and most importantly, to stay in business.

Prior to our representation, a purchaser of a dental practice (“Purchaser”) won an arbitration award worth over $500,000 against the selling dentist (“Seller”). The arbitrator stated the Seller made material misrepresentations regarding the sale. The Seller filed bankruptcy and the Purchaser filed an adversary matter to prevent discharge of the award. The Seller retained our firm to represent him. We defended the Seller at trial. Notwithstanding that the arbitrator held the Seller made material misrepresentations, the bankruptcy court discharged the debt after it found that the Purchaser did not justifiably rely on the misrepresentations and that there was no evidence of intent to deceive.

September 2017. FLP successfully negotiated a compromise on behalf of an individual Chapter 7 client seeking to discharge over $110,000 of student loan debt. Based on the client’s age and after documenting his medical issues and work limitations, we reached a settlement that allowed the client to avoid the expense and uncertainty of trial. Result: 90% reduction in principal payable over 5 years with no interest.

Represented debtor defendants in causes of action under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4 & (a)(6), and 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3). After a two day trial, the Court held the plaintiff failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of evidence and entered judgment in favor of debtor defendants.