A dispute about “fee forfeiture,” in the broader context of fidiuciary-duty breaches by a company’s lawyer, led to this observation about the proper role of the Burrow v. Arce fee-forfeiture factors: “[T]there is no “windfall” given the record in this case. Hughes unfairly transferred PPI’s assets to Performance Probiotics, in breach of her fiduciary duty to PPI, and then used those assets to generate the fees at issue. That is, even though Hughes was paid by Performance Probiotics, she was effectively paying herself with funds that were rightfully PPI’s. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of fee forfeiture in this context as it accords with the general rule that disloyal agents must disgorge their ill-gotten gains.” Thomas v. Hughes, No. 20-50671 (March 3, 2022).
The post Disgorgement, and DISGORGEMENT appeared first on 600 Camp.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/58pNCRb
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment