Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Luke Campbell Loses Motion to Dismiss!

Luke Campbell Order

Well it appears Judge Cooke has ruled and given Luke Campbell an early Thanksgiving gift -- a big fat goose egg:
Plaintiffs argue that Campbell is liable for the negligence of the Luke Corporations under Florida’s business judgment rule, Florida Statute § 607.0831. “Under the business judgment rule, directors are presumed to have acted properly and in good faith, and are called to account for their actions only when they are shown to have engaged in fraud, bad faith, or an abuse of discretion.” Cottle v. Storer Commc’ns, Inc., 849 F.2d 570, 574 (11th Cir. 1988).
Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges that Campbell willfully and recklessly failed to use reasonable care in performing his duties as the sole corporate director for the Luke Corporations. Count II further alleges that Campbell acted in bad faith and that the proximate result of Campbell’s actions have lead Plaintiffs to be damaged in an amount in excess of $400,000.00 plus interest and costs. The allegations of personal negligence set forth in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to satisfy the business judgment rule. Therefore, I find that Count II survives the Motion to Dismiss.
First the Canes and now this!

2 comments:

  1. "Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges that Campbell willfully and recklessly failed to use reasonable care in performing his duties as the sole corporate director for the Luke Corporations. Count II further alleges that Campbell acted in bad faith and that the proximate result of Campbell’s actions have lead Plaintiffs to be damaged in an amount in excess of $400,000.00 plus interest and costs. The allegations of personal negligence set forth in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to satisfy the business judgment rule."

    Can someone please explain to me how these allegations are not straight-up the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusations?

    ReplyDelete
  2. qnzajoqvydf, Xrumer guide , rAGxxfI.

    ReplyDelete