What adopted was years of litigation towards Central 1 and Grant Thornton arising from the identical occasions. On February 29, 2024, UM commenced the motion at difficulty, claiming $5 million for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation. Its principle was that the 2 companies had misled UM and the courts concerning the impact of Grant Thornton’s discharge as receiver.
A movement decide dismissed that motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of course of. He discovered the corporate lacked standing as a result of it remained bankrupt, and that the declare was one other try to relitigate issues already determined. He rejected the concept altering an organization’s administrators wipes out its litigation historical past, warning towards a “wild west” during which companies shed prior orders by swapping the folks behind them.
The decide additionally made a vexatious litigant order below part 140 of the Courts of Justice Act. It captured not solely UM however its former principal and present administrators, requiring them to acquire a decide’s depart earlier than bringing additional claims tied to the receivership.
The prices discovering is the half advisors and agency administrators will need to notice. The director in query joined UM’s board on January 14, 2025, after the motion started, then swore an affidavit on February 17, 2025 asserting the corporate had been discharged from chapter. On cross-examination he couldn’t assist that or different statements, had not reviewed key supplies, and confirmed little grasp of the file. The movement decide held him personally accountable for the prices.
The Courtroom of Enchantment noticed no error. It denied him depart to enchantment the prices order and left the vexatious litigant restrictions in place. The panel confused {that a} deponent should take care to verify the reality of sworn statements earlier than signing.
