It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:50 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
Strathvale Holdings, Ltd. v. Silbert,
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2003 WL 21652639, Not Officially Published, (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977),, Cal.App. 2 Dist., July 15, 2003



DOI TODD, J.
*1 Plaintiffs and respondents Strathvale Holdings, Ltd. (Strathvale) and Concord Investment Holdings Corporation (Concord) FN1 sought recovery for damages alleged to have arisen out of certain investments made by respondents in an allegedly fraudulent financial investment scheme. The case proceeded to a bench trial on respondents' claims for unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code FN2 section 17200, constructive trust and conversion.FN3 The court entered judgment in favor of respondents and against defendants and appellants Hugh Silbert and his defunct companies Hu-Mann Co., Inc., Allied Provincial Investments, S.A., Bellingham Industries Ltd., and Zenith Acquisitions and Imperial Holdings, Ltd. We affirm.FN4

FN1. Karifa Capital Corp., Ltd., alleged that it made investments as well. Pursuant to the judgment, Karifa recovered nothing, and does not appear to be a party on appeal. Additional plaintiffs consisted of individuals Wayne Kunimura, Ken Murishwar, Ken Hall, William Mullins and Brian Dempsey, whose claims were dismissed by the court during trial.


FN2. All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise specified.


FN3. Respondents' additional claims for declaratory relief and resulting trust were dismissed by the court.


FN4. We note that our task on appeal was made particularly difficult by the parties' inadequate briefing and general lack of specific citation to the record. Indeed, because the trial exhibits were originally provided to us without being marked with the exhibit numbers assigned at trial, it was impossible to follow along with the exhibits while reviewing the trial testimony. Accordingly, we requested that the record be resubmitted with exhibit references, which necessitated a second review of the transcript.




FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND



Trial


The following evidence was presented at trial: In 1994, respondents invested an aggregate of $430,000 into an investment program initially offered by an entity called Manor Financial Services and its principal, Rob Nite.FN5 Specifically, respondent Strathvale invested $300,000, and respondent Concord invested $130,000. Ken Murishwar, managing director of Concord, was told by a third-party broker that in return for investing between $130,000 to $150,000 in the Nite program, he would receive $1 million a week for a 40-week period.

FN5. In their first amended complaint, respondents alleged that in 1996 they “obtained a judgment against Manor Financial Services in an amount in excess of $138,000,000.00.â€

_________________
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group