Holding that defendant cannot avoid disgorgement of profits attributable to efforts which were part of his regular duties as a corporate director and officer for which he received a salary
826 F. Supp. 2d 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 62 times
Finding it insufficient for pleading intent to procure breach that "defendant engaged in wrongful conduct that had the effect of impairing a plaintiff's contract"
Holding that plaintiffs suffered no damages under RICO because it was undisputed that they did not incur any out-of-pocket expenses as a result of defendants' conduct
Noting that “prejudgment interest accrues at the rate for postjudgment interest” and “the applicable [Texas] statute sets postjudgment interest at either ‘the prime rate as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on the date of computation' or ‘five percent a year if the prime rate as published by the Board of Governors . . . is less than five percent'” (quoting, inter alia, Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 304.003(c)-)
Holding that “UNUM cannot be said to have completed its fiduciary functions under the plan when it set up the [RAAs]” because “delivery of the checkbook did not constitute a ‘lump sum payment’ called for by the policies ”