IBJNews

Federal judge dismisses Brightpoint fraud suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a London-based hedge fund over a $10 million loan it said Indianapolis-based Brightpoint Inc. fraudulently brokered in anticipation of an acquisition that never materialized.

Sofaer Global Hedge Fund claimed Brightpoint CEO Bob Laikin persuaded the fund to lend $10 million to Hong-Kong based Chinatron Group Holdings Ltd., a company that invested in wireless communications firms. In Sofaer’s complaint, Laikin was described as a founding shareholder and former director of Chinatron.

According to the 2009 lawsuit, Brightpoint had been a Chinatron customer for a decade. The complaint alleged that Chinatron owed the mobile phone distributor $5.4 million from a line of credit extended during a previous business deal, but lacked funds to repay it.

“If Chinatron could not repay its debt to Brightpoint by the end of 2007, Brightpoint would be forced to record it as ‘bad debt’ on its books, which would be subject to scrutiny by Brightpoint’s audit committee, a situation Laikin very much wanted to avoid,” according to Sofaer’s complaint.

The lawsuit also alleges that Laikin had been in discussions with Chinatron throughout 2007 about the possibility of Brightpoint's purchasing Chinatron subsidiary Mobiltron France for $14 million by March 2008. Sofaer loaned Chinatron $10 million, in anticipation of a $12 million repayment due in March 2008 from the proceeds of the Mobiltron deal, which never came together.

Brightpoint asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Sofaer had no legal claim against Brightpoint or Laikin.

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt issued her ruling on Friday, siding with Brightpoint.

“Sofaer simply had to understand that there was some risk that the deal would fall apart,” she wrote. “Apparently, though, Sofaer was blinded by rose-colored glasses,  believing that a deal in its infancy was actually carved in stone.”

Sofaer’s lawsuit alleged that on Dec. 17, 2007, Laikin and the Chinatron CEO held a conference call finalizing details of the loan with Sofaer.

“Laikin told Sofaer on this call that the deal for Brightpoint to purchase Mobiltron France for [$14 million] by the end of March 2008 was ‘as good as a done deal,’ that the deal was ’99.9 [percent] done’ and that Laikin was ‘99.9 [percent] certain’ that the deal would go through,” Sofaer’s complaint read.

Sofaer made the $10 million loan to Chinatron in December 2007, according to the complaint, and Chinatron used the money to repay the $5.4 million it owed Brightpoint.

According to the complaint, subsequent Brightpoint due diligence led the company to offer just $6.25 million for Mobiltron France. Chinatron turned down that offer.

“If a promise was actually in place for a $14 million purchase price, then Chinatron’s counter-offer for $6.25 million for 92.5 percent of Mobiltron France makes virtually no sense, and forcefully demonstrates that the deal was speculative,” Judge Walton Pratt wrote.

In response to the ruling, James Masella III, an attorney with Blank Rome LLP in New York representing Brightpoint and Laikin, said Monday: "We have maintained throughout this litigation that Bob Laikin is a man of his word, and I believe the decision gives Mr. Laikin and Brightpoint complete vindication."

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. In reality, Lilly is maintaining profit by cutting costs such as Indiana/US citizen IT workers by a significant amount with their Tata Indian consulting connection, increasing Indian H1B's at Lillys Indiana locations significantly and offshoring to India high paying Indiana jobs to cut costs and increase profit at the expense of U.S. workers.

  2. I think perhaps there is legal precedence here in that the laws were intended for family farms, not pig processing plants on a huge scale. There has to be a way to squash this judges judgment and overrule her dumb judgement. Perhaps she should be required to live in one of those neighbors houses for a month next to the farm to see how she likes it. She is there to protect the people, not the corporations.

  3. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm Corporate farms are not farms, they are indeed factories on a huge scale. The amount of waste and unhealthy smells are environmentally unsafe. If they want to do this, they should be forced to buy a boundary around their farm at a premium price to the homeowners and landowners that have to eat, sleep, and live in a cesspool of pig smells. Imagine living in a house that smells like a restroom all the time. Does the state really believe they should take the side of these corporate farms and not protect Indiana citizens. Perhaps justifiable they should force all the management of the farms to live on the farm itself and not live probably far away from there. Would be interesting to investigate the housing locations of those working at and managing the corporate farms.

  4. downtown in the same area as O'malia's. 350 E New York. Not sure that another one could survive. I agree a Target is needed d'town. Downtown Philly even had a 3 story Kmart for its downtown residents.

  5. Indy-area residents... most of you have no idea how AMAZING Aurelio's is. South of Chicago was a cool pizza place... but it pales in comparison to the heavenly thin crust Aurelio's pizza. Their deep dish is pretty good too. My waistline is expanding just thinking about this!

ADVERTISEMENT