You're viewing Docket Item 1 from the case The Vaughan Company, Realtors- Adversary Proceeding. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO













Debtor.

In re:

THE VAUGHAN COMPANY, REALTORS,





JUDITH A. WAGNER, Chapter
11 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate
of the Vaughan Company, Realtors,



v.

MICHAEL DRESKIN, CAROL WILLIAMS
and ELITE REAL ESTATE, LLC d/b/a
REMAX ELITE,




Defendants.

Plaintiff,












Case No. 10-10759-j11
Chapter 11




Adv. Proc.











COMPLAINT



Judith A. Wagner (the “Trustee”), as Chapter 11 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of

Vaughan Company, Realtors (“VCR”), by counsel, Askew & Mazel, LLC (James A. Askew and

Edward A. Mazel) and Sanders & Westbrook, P.C. (Maureen Sanders), for her Complaint, states:

NATURE OF PROCEEDING

1.

This adversary proceeding arises from an exodus of a group of real estate brokers

who were employed by the debtor, The Vaughan Company, Realtors (the “Debtor”), on

February 22, 2010 (the “Petition Date”), and subsequently relocated to Elite Real Estate, LLC

d/b/a ReMax Elite (“ReMax”).

2.

The purpose of this proceeding is to recover damages from Defendants for their

acts and omissions in furtherance of improperly relocating the Debtor’s brokers, and to recover



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 1 of 18

1

damages for defendant Michael Dreskin’s (“Dreskin’s”) breach of fiduciary duties while acting

as the representative of the Debtor while it was proceeding in the above-captioned case as a

debtor in possession.

3.

During the course of this adversary proceeding, the Trustee may learn (through

discovery or otherwise) of additional transfers made to Defendants or of additional causes of

action against Defendants. It is the Trustee’s intention to avoid and recover all transfers made by

VCR of an interest of VCR in property that were made to or for the benefit of Defendants or any

other transferee, and pursue all available causes of action against Defendants. The Trustee

reserves the right to amend this original Complaint to include: (i) further information regarding

any transfers made by VCR to Defendants, (ii) additional transfers made by VCR to Defendants,

(iii) modifications or revisions to Defendants’ names, (iv) additional Defendants, or (v)

additional causes of action (i.e. but not exclusively, 11 U.S.C. §§ 542, 544, 545, 548, and 549)

(collectively, the “Amendments”) that may become known to the Trustee at any time during this

adversary proceeding, through formal discovery or otherwise, and for all Amendments to relate

back to this original Complaint.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.

The Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b)

and/or 157.

5.

All counts set forth in the Complaint are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 157(b)(2)(A), and/or (O).

6.

7.

Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and/or 1409.

On February 22, 2010 (the “Petition Date”), VCR commenced the above-

captioned case by filing a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 2 of 18

2

Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. (the “Bankruptcy Code”). The Petition Date is the date of filing

the petition within the meaning of §§ 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and is the date of the

commencement of the case within the meaning of § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code.

8.

On April 29, 2010, the Trustee was appointed Chapter 11 Trustee in this case,

and continues to serve in that capacity.

9.

Pursuant to §§ 323(b) and 704(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee has

standing to bring these claims because, inter alia, VCR incurred losses and was damaged as a

result of the claims set forth herein.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS



10.

From February 22, 2010, through April 29, 2010, the Debtor proceeded in

bankruptcy case No. 10-10759 as a debtor in possession.

11.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Dreskin was a “director” of the

Debtor.

12.

From at least 2000 through April 29, 2010, Dreskin was part of VCR’s

management team.

13.

On or about March 2, 2010, the Debtor appointed Dreskin as its interim Chief

Executive Officer.

14.

On or about March 3, 2010, Dreskin, on behalf of the Debtor, signed a Receipt

and Certification of Understanding UST Guidelines and Reporting Requirements and

Certification of and Understanding of Chapter 11 Debtor in Possession to Obtain Prompt

Determination of Unpaid Tax Liability.

15.

On March 25, 2010, Dreskin, on behalf of the Debtor as its interim Chief

Executive Officer (“CEO”) and part of its management team, testified at the first meeting of



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 3 of 18

3

creditors held in the above-captioned case. During the first meeting of creditors, Dreskin

testified that:

a. He was appointed interim CEO around March 10 or 12, 2010;

b. Prior to becoming interim CEO, he managed the Debtor’s office on Paseo Del

Norte and was part of the Debtor’s management team for approximately 10

years;

c. VCR had approximately 135 brokers when the bankruptcy was filed and

approximately 240 listings;

d. The Debtor’s plan was to move ahead as an operating organization,

representing sellers whose houses the Debtor was listing and representing

buyers who were in the market to purchase a home;

e. Dreskin’s intent was to personally continue to work for the Debtor throughout

the reorganization and continue his management duties;

f. As of the date of the first meeting of creditors, the Debtor employed 90 real

estate brokers and stated that the current agents were “pretty” committed to

staying;

g. The VCR bankruptcy filing did not have a dramatic effect on pending listings;

h. VCR’s brokers wanted to continue to work for VCR so long as it was a viable

business;

i. VCR was hoping to be a viable, profitable company that would generate

profits to repay debts; and

j. VCR’s management team was very experienced and if the Debtor’s agents

could be retained, Dreskin believed VCR had a viable business.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 4 of 18

4

16.

On or about April 8, 2010, the Debtor licensed the trade name NM Real Estate

Associates and prior to April 8, 2010, the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate paid to have new “for sale”

signs made under the new trade name. In an article in the Albuquerque Journal dated April 9,

2010, Dreskin stated that the Debtor licensed the new trade name because "we're distancing

ourselves from the Vaughan name and all the negative connotations…the big push was people

not wanting a Vaughan sign in their front yard."

17.

On April 14, 2010, the United States Trustee’s Office filed a Motion to Appoint a

Trustee or Convert the Case (Docket Nos. 163 and 164). That motion sought to either convert

VCR’s bankruptcy to a liquidation under Chapter 7 or to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee.

18.

On April 15, 2010, Dreskin and others sent, or caused to be sent, an e-mail to the

Debtor’s brokers and staff stating

“US Trustees [sic] office filed a motion yesterday afternoon to convert us to a
Chapter 7. The US Trustee was not aware that we had already reached an
agreement with the SEC to allow us to continue with our re-structuring [sic].
That document was filed with the Court this morning. Once the US Trustee was
aware that we had an agreement with the SEC, she agreed verbally not to proceed
with converting us to a Chapter 7.”

19.

On or about April 20, 2010, Debtor’s counsel informed the U.S. Trustee’s Office

that the Debtor’s brokers were leaving, and on April 30, 2010, Debtor’s counsel informed the

U.S. Trustee’s Office that all of the realtors were leaving as of April 30, 2010.

20.

On April 23, 2010, at 5:06 p.m., Dreskin and others, sent, or caused to be sent, an

e-mail to VCR’s staff and brokers stating:

“This afternoon, the US District Judge issued an order to appoint a Trustee over
our Office and put us into a Chapter 7. Essentially, that shuts us down as an
entity. It is recommended that you take action to transfer your license to a new
company, cancel your current listings (this weekend), using the RANM form, and
relist with a new company. Pending sales will be paid at the title company and
we are assured there will be no issue with that. We did our best to keep the



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 5 of 18

5

Company together, but the court has decided otherwise. The Best to All of You-it
has been our pleasure to be associated with you.”

21.

On April 23, 2010 the Trustee Judith A. Wagner was contacted for the first time

by the US Trustee’s office to potentially serve as Chapter 11 trustee. No trustee had yet been

appointed.

22.

The Invoice for VCR’s attorneys, Law office of George “Dave” Giddens, P.C.,

reflects an entry on 4/23/2010 labeled “phone call from Michael Dreskin re transition to chapter

11 trustee.”

23.

On April 24, 2010, defendant Elite Real Estate, LLC d/b/a ReMax Elite

(“ReMax”) entered into Independent Contractor Agreements with the following brokers who

were formerly employed by the Debtor: Carol Williams, Brigid Lapp, Joanne Leobetter, Rhonda

Levand, Ramona Biddle, Pamela Collins, David Del Bello, Mary Denison, Gene Gaik, Harvey

Grasty, and Tom Lopez.

24.

On April 25, 2010, ReMax entered into Independent Contractor Agreements with

the following brokers who were formerly employed by the Debtor: Gui Bondaguidi, Anne

Garrett, Yasmin Hahan, Sheryl McCrary, James David Ray, Larry Cobb, Kathleen Carpenter,

Dirie Granuke, Joann Hirsig, Nancy Lonsford, Judson McCollum, Sharon McCollum, and Brett

Paas.

25.

On April 26, 2010, ReMax entered into Independent Contractor Agreements with

the following brokers who were formerly employed by the Debtor: Susie Greene, Rik Burke,

Hector Cruz, Alison Gerby Shafer, Kerri L. Provo, Steven Vigil, David Kaiser, Brett Shafer, and

Steven Vigil.

26.

From April 23, 2010, through May 26, 2010, ReMax also entered into

Independent Contractor Agreements with the following brokers that were formerly employed by



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 6 of 18

6

the Debtor: Jeffery Fairchild (April 27, 2010), Deborah Rinehart (April 27, 2010), Monica

Stanley (April 28, 2010, to be effective December 31, 2010), Theresa Strader (dated, April 23,

2011), Richard Gatner (April 30, 2010), Lew Knight (April 31, 2010), Kenneth Mills (May 26,

2010),

27.

It was not until April 29, 2010, that an Order was entered appointing the Trustee

as the Chapter 11 Trustee in the above-captioned case (Doc. No. 201).

28.

Debtors in Chapter 11 generally continue their day to day operations while

restructuring.

29.

On April 29, 2010, Dreskin resigned as registered agent for VCR. His resignation

acknowledges that “the corporation is in Chapter 11.”

30.

On April 30, 2010, Dreskin agreed to continue to serve as qualifying broker for

VCR while it continued to operate as a debtor in possession under the Trustee’s oversight.

31.

By at least May 12 or May 13, 2010, Dreskin realized the Trustee was not going

to seek to immediately convert the above-captioned case to one under Chapter 7 of the

Bankruptcy Code.

32.

On or about May 15, 2010, Dreskin entered into a Co-Qualifying Broker

Agreement with ReMax with an effective date of May 15, 2010. Upon information and belief,

Dreskin had been negotiating with ReMax to become a ReMax broker for several weeks prior to

entering into the Co-Qualifying Broker Agreement with ReMax.

33.

Through a letter dated May 27, 2010, Dreskin resigned as qualifying broker for

VCR d/b/a New Mexico Real Estate Associates and allegedly returned all records.

34.

Upon information and belief, ReMax received a discount in "continuing franchise

fees" since former VCR brokers were just starting to work as brokers for ReMax.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 7 of 18

7

35.

Upon information and belief, prior to April 20, 2010, Carol Williams, while still

employed as a broker for VCR, canvassed VCR’s brokers and recruited and prepared them to

relocate to ReMax.

36.

Upon information and belief, in April 2010, Dreskin and Williams were

negotiating with ReMax to relocate a large number of VCR’s brokers in the event the Debtor’s

Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.

37.

Upon information and belief, Dreskin fabricated panic among VCR’s brokers by

improperly and inaccurately making false statements that the Court had decided to “appoint a

Trustee,” “put us [VCR] into a Chapter 7,” and essentially “shut us down as an entity” and

advising the then current brokers to cancel their listings that weekend.

38.

Upon information and belief, Dreskin made the above-mentioned false statements

for his own personal benefit and in order to cause VCR’s brokers to follow Williams to ReMax.

39.

As a direct and proximate result of the false statements and acts by Dreskin,

VCR’s then-existing brokers relocated to ReMax.

40.

Upon information and belief, certain of the Debtor’s listings (the “Debtor’s

Listings”) were transferred to ReMax and relisted. Upon information and belief, the Debtor’s

Listings eventually resulted in closed sales while listed with ReMax and ReMax was paid a

portion of the commissions on those sales(collectively, the “Commissions”).

41.

VCR’s reorganization as a viable business was at least in part dependent upon

VCR generating revenues in the form of commissions from real estate sales through its

experienced team of brokers and employees.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 8 of 18

8

42.

As a direct result of actions by Dreskin and Williams, VCR was unable to

generate revenues because VCR’s listings were transferred, and certain staff and brokers

relocated to ReMax.

43.

As a direct result of actions by Remax, Dreskin and Williams, VCR’s opportunity

to further its plan to continue as a real estate brokerage business was thwarted and made

impossible.

44.

ReMax, through its employees, agents or representatives, assisted Dreskin and

Williams in their efforts to move VCR’s listings, staff, and brokers away from VCR.

45.

Upon information and belief, ReMax received revenues from closed sales for

listings that were diverted from VCR, and that would have been received by VCR but for the

exodus of VCR’s agents.

COUNT 1

ACCOUNTING (ALL DEFENDANTS)

11 U.S.C. § 542



46.

The Trustee re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as

if fully set forth herein.

47.

The Commissions constitute property of the estate to be recovered and

administered by the Trustee pursuant to § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.

48.

As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to § 542 of the Bankruptcy Code, the

Trustee is entitled to a full and complete accounting of any and all information relating to the

Commissions, including any and all listing agreements and closing statements for such listings.

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (DRESKIN)

COUNT 2

49.

The Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 9 of 18

9

50.

As VCR’s interim CEO and representative of the insolvent debtor in possession,

Dreskin owed a fiduciary duty to the Debtor, its estate, and its creditors.

51.

As VCR’s interim CEO during VCR’s tenure as a debtor in possession, Dreskin

owed a duty of care and loyalty to the debtor in possession, its estate, and its creditors.

52.

As VCR’s interim CEO, Dreskin was an officer of the Court, and had the

responsibility to act in the best interests of the estate as a whole.

53.

At all times in which VCR was insolvent, Dreskin’s fiduciary duty extended to

VCR’s creditors.

54.

Dreskin’s statements and acts set forth above furthered his own self interest,

rather than the interest of VCR, its estate, and its creditors.

55.

Dreskin placed his own interest above the interests of VCR, its estate, and its

creditors.

56.

57.

VCR was damaged as a result of Dreskin’s actions.

Dreskin’s wrongful actions entitle the Trustee to compensatory damages,

disgorgement of all commissions recovered as a result of VCR’s listings, disgorgement of all

amounts paid to him as interim CEO and representative of the Debtor-in-Possession, and

punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (WILLIAMS)

58.

The Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous

COUNT 3



paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.

Dreskin owed a fiduciary duty to VCR.

Dreskin breached his fiduciary duty to VCR by, inter alia, the actions set forth

59.

60.

herein.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 10 of 18

10

61. Williams was aware of Dreskin’s fiduciary duty to VCR.

62. Williams intentionally provided substantial assistance or encouragement to

Dreskin to breach his fiduciary duty to VCR.

63.

64.

Williams knew Dreskin’s acts were a breach of his fiduciary duty to VCR.

VCR has been damaged by Dreskin’s breach of his duty, and by Williams’

assistance or encouragement in assisting Dreskin in the breach of his duty.

65. Williams’ wrongful actions were such that VCR is entitled to compensatory

damages, as well as disgorgement of any and all commissions received as a result of VCR

listings, and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees from Williams.

CIVIL CONSPIRACY; CONSPIRACY TO BREACH FIDUCIARY DUTY

COUNT 4

(DRESKIN AND WILLIAMS)



66.

Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.



67.

As set forth herein, Dreskin had a fiduciary duty to VCR, the estate and its

creditors.



68.

A conspiracy existed between Dreskin and Williams to wrongfully usurp VCR’s

team of brokers for their own benefit.



69.

Dreskin and Williams’ acts, as set forth herein, were carried out by Dreskin and

Williams pursuant to the conspiracy.



70. Dreskin and Williams’ acts, as set forth herein, were carried out in order for

Dreskin to breach his fiduciary duties to VCR.





71.

VCR suffered damages as a result of Dreskin’s and Williams’ acts.

Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 11 of 18

11



72.

The Trustee is entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages as a result

of Dreskin’s and William’s conduct.

73. Dreskin and Williams are jointly and severally liable for their actions.

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS; BROKER’S LISTING

AGREEMENTS (REMAX, DRESKIN, WILLIAMS)

74. The Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous



COUNT 5



paragraphs of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein.

75.

ReMax, Dreskin and Williams had knowledge of VCR’s independent contractor

agreements with its brokers (the “Independent Contractor Agreements”.) As a result of

ReMax’s, Dreskin’s and William’s actions and misconduct, VCR was unable to full its

obligations under the Independent Contractor Agreements with its brokers.

76.

ReMax, Dreskin and Williams played an active and substantial part in causing

VCR to lose the benefits of its contracts with its brokers.

77.

ReMax, Dreskin and Williams

induced VCR’s brokers

to breach

their

Independent Contractor Agreements with VCR without justification or privilege.

78.

VCR suffered damages as a result of ReMax’s, Dreskin’s and Williams’ actions

and misconduct.

79.

The Trustee is entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages from

ReMax, Dreskin and Williams as a result of their actions and misconduct.

COUNT 6

NEGLIGENCE (DRESKIN)







80. Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 12 of 18

12



81.

Dreskin had an obligation to provide services to VCR in a manner which met the

standard of care (i) for corporate officers in New Mexico, (ii) for a qualifying broker, and and/or

(iii) for an officer of a debtor in possession.



82.

Dreskin failed to provide services in a manner which met one or more of the

above-mentioned standards of care by, inter alia, engaging in the actions set forth herein,

including making misrepresentations of fact.





83.

84.

Dreskin’s actions damaged VCR.

The Trustee is entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages from

Dreskin as a result of his actions.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT (REMAX)

COUNT 7





85.

The Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.

86.

Defendants conferred a benefit on ReMax by relocating VCR’s brokers and

closing real estate sales that would have otherwise been closed with VCR, and thus receiving the

Commissions.





87.

88.

ReMax realized the benefit of the Commissions.

Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable for ReMax to retain the benefit

of the Commissions which rightfully belonged to VCR and ReMax should be ordered to disgorge

all of the Commissions

89.

VCR has been damaged by ReMax’s failure to repay it for the closings made by

ReMax that would have otherwise closed with VCR and is entitled to payment of the

Commissions.



13

Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 13 of 18



DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS PURSUANT

TO 11 U.S.C. § 502, OR ALTERNATIVELY, EQUITABLE

SUBORDINATION OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) (DRESKIN AND

90.

The Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous

COUNT 8

WILLIAMS)



paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.

91.

Dreskin and Williams engaged in the inequitable and improper conduct set forth

herein.

92.

Based upon the foregoing allegations and pursuant to § 502(d) of the Bankruptcy

Code, Dreskin’s and Williams’ claims, if any, must be disallowed since Defendant has not repaid

VCR for the damages incurred as a result of the Defendants’ conduct.



93.

Alternatively, pursuant to § 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code and based on the

foregoing allegations and principals of equitable subordination, the Court should subordinate

Dreskin’s and Williams’ claims to all other unsecured claims because of Dreskin and Williams’

inequitable conduct which has resulted in injury to VCR, other creditors and/or conferred an

unfair disadvantage on other creditors.

BREACH OF CONTRACT (DRESKIN AND WILLIAMS)

COUNT 9



94.

The Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.

95.

Upon information and belief, Dreskin and VCR had a contract pursuant to which

Dreskin was employed by VCR.

96.

Upon information and belief, Williams and VCR had a contract pursuant to which

Williams was employed by VCR.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 14 of 18

14

97.

Dreskin and Williams breached their respective contracts by engaging in the

above-described actions and thereby failing to provide competent services.

98.

Dreskin and Williams further breached their respective contracts by ceasing their

performance under the contract.

99.

Dreskin and Williams, by, inter alia, the actions described above, breached the

covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in any contract in New Mexico.

100. Dreskin’s and Williams’ breaches of the contract between them and VCR caused

damages to VCR thereby entitling VCR to compensatory and consequential damages.

101. Dreskin’s and Williams’ wrongful actions were such that VCR is entitled to

punitive damages from both Dreskin and Williams.

COUNT 10

LIBEL (DRESKIN)

102. Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous



paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.

103. On or about April 23, 2010 at 5:06 p.m., Dreskin published or caused to be

published a communication containing an alleged statement of fact concerning VCR by sending

or causing to be sent an e-mail to all of VCR’s independent contractors, from him and other VCR

managers, stating (i) the US District Judge issued an order to appoint a trustee over VCR and put

VCR into Chapter 7; (ii) essentially, that VCR was shut down as an entity; and (iii) a

recommendation to associate brokers that they take action to transfer their real estate license to a

new company, cancel their listings, and relist with a new company.

104. Those statements were false and the communications were defamatory.

105. The persons receiving the communications understood the statements to be

defamatory.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 15 of 18

15

106. Dreskin either knew that the communications were false, negligently failed to

recognize that they were false, or acted with malice in making such communications.

107. The communications caused actual injury to VCR’s reputation and an exodus of

associate brokers.

108. VCR suffered actual injury as a result of the communications.

109. The Trustee is entitled to compensatory damages for the actual injuries caused by

the defamatory communications.

110. The communications were either made with knowledge of their falsity, or with a

reckless disregard for whether they were false or not; therefore, The Trustee is entitled to

punitive damages.



WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor

of Trustee and against Dreskin, Williams and ReMax, as follows:

A.

On Count 1, pursuant to §542 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to

immediate payment and turnover from Dreskin, Williams and ReMax of any and all of the

Commissions paid, directly or indirectly, to Dreskin, Williams or ReMax and attorneys’ fees.

B.

On Count 2, under breach of fiduciary duty, award the Trustee compensatory

damages, disgorgement of all salary and commissions on all listings received from VCR and

punitive damages from Dreskin, plus attorneys’ fees.

C.

On Count 3, under aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, award the Trustee

compensatory damages, disgorgement of all commissions on all listings received from VCR and

punitive damages from Williams, plus attorneys’ fees.



Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 16 of 18

16

D.

On Count 4, under civil conspiracy and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty,

award The Trustee compensatory and punitive damages and disgorgement from Dreskin and

Williams.

E.

On Count 5, under tortious interference with contract, award to The Trustee

compensatory and punitive damages from ReMax, Dreskin and Williams.

F.

On Count 6, under negligence, award to The Trustee all damages caused by

Dreskin’s negligence as well as punitive damages.

G.

On Count 7, under unjust enrichment, order disgorgement of all Commissions

from ReMax plus attorneys’ fees

H.

On Count 8, pursuant to §§ 502(d) and 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, that

Defendant’s claims, if any, must be disallowed since Defendant has not repaid VCR for the

damages incurred as a result of the Defendants’ conduct, or in the alternative subordinated,

because of Dreskin’s and Williams’ inequitable conduct, which has resulted in injury to VCR,

other creditors and/or conferred an unfair disadvantage on other creditors.

I.

On Count 9, under breach of contract, award to The Trustee compensatory,

consequential and punitive damages from Dreskin and Williams.

J.

On Count 10, under libel, award to the Trustee actual, compensatory, and punitive

damages from Dreskin.

K.

On all Claims for Relief, awarding the Trustee all applicable interest, costs and

attorneys’ fees of this action; and

On all Claims for Relief, any further relief deemed just and proper by this Court.






17

Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 17 of 18














































































































ASKEW & MAZEL, LLC



By: s/ filed electronically



James A. Askew
Edward A. Mazel




320 Gold Ave. SW, Ste 300A




Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
(505) 433-3097 (telephone)
(505) 717-1494 (fax)
Attorneys for Judith A. Wagner, Chapter 11
trustee of the Vaughan Company Realtors
bankruptcy estate


-and-













Maureen Sanders
SANDERS & WESTBROOK, P.C.
102 Granite Avenue, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505) 243-2243
(505) 243-2750 (fax)
Special Counsel for the Trustee


Case 13-01030-j Doc 1 Filed 04/15/13 Entered 04/15/13 17:41:42 Page 18 of 18

18