Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Doc 204
Desc Main
-, t
_
j~
,,
JUL - 5 2016
` .~~
~ 1-
In re
Debtors.
---------------------------------------------------------X
~~`~~
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
8. In the Giudice Lawsuit it is alleged that Mr. Kridel, is a certified criminal attorney
in New Jersey, failed to adequately counsel Ms. Giudice in connection with a
target letter that he received from the United States Attorney that stated Ms.
Giudice was a target of a federal grand jury for mortgage fraud and bankruptcy
fraud (the "Target Letter").
9. It is alleged that Mr. Kridel failed to warn Ms. Giudice of the consequences of the
Target Letter.
10. Instead, Mr. Kridel permitted Ms. Giudice to engage in civil discovery in an
adversary proceeding with the United States Trustee, a division of the United
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
bankruptcy fraud.
11. Mr. Kridel denied Ms. Giudice "due process of law" because he denied her the
opportunity to defend herself against the pending federal grand jury criminal
investigation and to fight being indicted for either mortgage fraud or bankruptcy
fraud.
12. It is alleged that Mr. Kridel's actions in connection with the Target Letter were
intentional because he desired to conceal his legal malpractice and conflicts of
interest.
13. As set forth in the Affidavit of Merit of A. Ross Pearlson, Esq., Mr. Kridel's
incarcerated.
14. The Giudice Lawsuit is Teresa's fight for justice because it is alleged that she
was unjustly incarcerated because of Mr. Kridel's legal malpractice and
intentional breaches of fiduciary duty.
15. It must be borne in mind that the Giudice Lawsuit has survived a Motion to
Dismiss, and there is documentary evidence buttressing the allegations in the
Giudice Lawsuit.
16. If the allegations are proven in the Giudice Lawsuit it will be a heinous case of
legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty because a debtor's attorney will
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
17. Ms. Giudice has raised serious allegations concerning not only the Giudice
bankruptcy case, Uut also the federal grand jury investigation of the Giudices.
18. 1V1s. Giudice is entitled to her day in court against Mr. Kridel to sustain her
allegations against Mr. Kridel.
MS. GIUDICE IS THE OWNER OF THE GIUDICE LAWSUIT
19. On July 28, 2015 Ms. Giudice commenced the Giudice Lawsuit against James A.
Kridel, Jr., Esq
20. Mr. Kridel subsequently moved to dismiss the Giudice Lawsuit. One of the
grounds for dismissal of the action was that Ms. Giudice lacked standing to
bankruptcy estate.
21. Attached as Exhibit A is a true copy of the Order dated Apri122, 2016 of the Hon.
Robert Brennan of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County (the
"Order"). The Order denied Mr. Kridel's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Giudice's
causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.(Exhibit A).
22. Attached as Exhibit B is a true copy of the Transcript of Hearing dated April 22,
2016 of the Hon. Robert Brennan of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris
County.
23. Judge Brennan stated that "virtually all" of the incidents complained of occurred
post petition.(ExhiUit B p. 18).
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
35. It is respectfully represented that the Application to em}~loy Siegel &Siegel, P.C.
should be denied because the proposed retention does not satisfy the business
judgment rule.
36. The Giudice Lawsuit involves the following legal issues: bankruptcy, federal
criminal law; federal criminal procedure; legal ethics; legal malpractice; and New
Jersey civil procedure.
37. Ms. Giudice has employed two law firms to prosecute the Giudice Lawsuit:
Carlos J. Cuevas, Esq. and Brach Eichler LLC ("Brach Eichler").
New York Law School and St. John's University School of Law; I have published
extensively in the area of bankruptcy law; and I have made presentations on
bankru}~tcy law before the .House Judiciary Committee; the National Bankruptcy
Review Commission; the American Bar Association; and New Yorlc State Bar
Association.
39. Brach Eichler is a major New Jersey law firm that has the legal talent and
resources necessary to successfully prosecute the Giudice Lawsuit.
40. Anthony Rainone, Esq. and Brach Eichler have significant experience in litigating
legal malpractice claims.
41. Brach Eichler regularly ap~~ears before the New Jersey Superior Court, Morris
County.
L
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
Klingeman. If the Trustee seeks other counsel to prosecute the Giudice Lawsuit it
is doubtful that she will waive the attorney-client privilege because at this juncture
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
money to the prosecution of the Giudice Lawsuit only if the litigation is going to
be done correctly. At this juncture, Ms. Giudice lost faith in the Trustee.
54. How can the Trustee maximize the value of the Giudice Lawsuit without Ms.
Giudice's full participation?
55. It is alarming that the Trustee now seeks to reinvent the wheel in the Giudice
Lawsuit.
56. It is alarming that the Trustee now seeks to interpose new counsel in this fachially
and legally complex litigation.
57. If it is not broke: do not fix it.
58. Is the Trustee going to fund the experts necessary to litigate the Giudice Lawsuit?
60. The interposition of new counsel who is unfamiliar with the Giudice Lawsuit will
irreparably damage the value of the Giudice Lawsuit.
61. Does the proposed counsel have the bankruptcy experience that is similar to my
bankruptcy background?
62. Does the proposed counsel have the legal malpractice experience that is similar to
Mr. Rainone's legal malpractice background?
63. Does the proposed counsel have the legal talent and resources of Brach Eichler?
64. Put sim}~ly, }proposed special counsel would farm the Giudice Lawsuit, and thus,
harm the value of the Giudice Lawsuit.
65. The Trustee has acted imprudently.
E:3
Case 09-39032-SLM
Doc 204
Desc Main
67. The Trustee fails to appreciate the fact and expert witnesses that are necessary to
successfully prosecute the Giudice Lawsuit.
68. The Trustee has embarked on a course of conduct that is injurious to the
remaining creditors and Ms. Uiudice.
69. The Trustee has adopted a strategy that benefits Mr. Kridel and harms the
creditors.
70. The Trustee's actions are a breach of his fiduciary duty.
71. Under these circumstances, the Trustee has failed to satisfy the business judgment
rule, and therefore, the Application should be denied.
CONCLUSION
73. Not only does the Trustee owe a fiduciary duty to the remaining creditors of the
Giudice banlcc-uptcy estate, but also the Trustee owes a fiduciary duty to Ms.
Gidice.
74. Mr. Kopleman appeared ninety minutes late for May 24,2016 hearing.
75. Subsequently, Mr. Kopleman stated that the Trustee declined to participate in a
status conference concerning the Giudice Lawsuit.
76. It is distressing that Mr. Kopleman attempted to avoid discussing the Giudice
Lawsuit with this Court.
77. I doubt that Mr. Kopleman would have written such a letter to Judge Commisa.
78. Mr. Kopleman is a court appointed fiduciary: he is not above the process.
Case 09-39032-SLM
Desc Main
80. The Trustee filed the Application knowing that there is a status conference to
discuss the status of the Giudice Lawsuit.
81. At the status conference Ms. Giudice will aslc that the issue of the settlement of
the ownership of the Giudice Lawsuit be sent to a Magistrate Judge in this
Courthouse. The issue of whether there is an enforceable settlement between Ms.
Giudice and the Trustee is governed by New Jersey law, which a Magistrate Judge
is competent to handle. Mediation will avoid further litigation.
82. Ms. Giudice will also Ue filing a motion to approve the settlement that she reached
with the Trustee concerning the Giudice Lawsuit.
84. The Trustee has embarked on a course of conduct that is beneficial to Mr. Kridel
because the Trustee's strategy will destroy the value of the Giudice Lawsuit.
85. It is distressing that the Trustee now wants to engage in a zero sum game
concerning the distribution of the proceeds of the Giudice Lawsuit.
86. It is distressing that the Trustee has embarked on a strategy that could delay the
litigation of the Giudice Lawsuit for a year.
87. All of the preceding raise grave questions concerning whether the Trustee is
effectuating his fiduciary duty to the creditors and Ms. Giudice.
88. The Trustee's conduct raises real questions as to whether he should be removed.
10
Case 09-39032-SLM
Desc Main
Ca~~los J. Cuevas
Carlos J. Cuevas
11