Todays Date: Click here to add this website to your favorites
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in Manhattan has dismissedthree Parmalat SpA fraud lawsuits against Bank of America Corp and theauditing firm Grant Thornton LLP over their roles in the Italian dairycompany's 2003 collapse.

Friday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan is a setback forParmalat and its chief executive Enrico Bondi, who has filed dozens oflawsuits against banks and auditors, including Citigroup Inc and theauditor Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, for helping prior management loot thecompany.

Parmalat said in a statement that it believed the decision was erroneous, and that it intends to appeal.

Burdened by about 14 billion euros ($20.6 billion) of debt, Parmalatfiled for insolvency protection in Italy in December 2003. It collapsedafter uncovering a 4 billion euro ($5.9 billion) hole in its balancesheet. Parmalat was restructured and relisted on the Milan bourse in2005, and Italian prosecutors filed criminal charges against variousexecutives.

In the current cases, Bondi and the unit Parmalat Capital FinanceLtd each sued Grant Thornton, accusing it of helping set up faketransactions to help insiders steal from the company.

Parmalat Capital made similar claims in a separate lawsuit againstBank of America, over transactions it said also generated more than$800 million for the Italian company.

The defendants argued, however, that they should prevail under alegal doctrine that prevents a company from recovering for its ownfraud.

In his 45-page opinion, Kaplan said Parmalat and Parmalat Capitalofficers had been acting within the scope of their employment when theyengaged in a "massive fraud" that ended with the company's collapse.

He rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the officers' "looting andsquandering even a small portion of corporate assets" would create anexception to the rule, and allow the new Parmalat to recover for theold Parmalat's wrongdoing.



Attorney Web Design by Law Promo

© Click The Law. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Click The Law.
as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or
a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyer | Las Vegas Business Litigation