X hits on this document

254 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

82 / 90

advisors “knowingly participated” in breaches of duty by the Trenwick and Trenwick

America directors by “helping to conceal the true financial condition of the Trenwick

Companies, manipulating the valuation and reserves of various of these companies,

and/or signing off on the legitimacy of these transactions.”140 Milliman is further alleged

to have acted wrongly “by certifying the reserve levels at Chartwell and concealing the

true levels of those reserves” before the 1999 merger.141 According to the complaint, all

these advisors were “aware of the Trenwick Companies’ insolvency” at the time they

were advising on the LaSalle merger and the reorganization.142

Notably, the complaint never specifically alleges that any of the advisors was

employed by Trenwick America itself. Other than the bare reality that Trenwick went

into bankruptcy nearly three years after the LaSalle merger, the complaint does not

contain facts indicating that the advisors had been professionally deficient in working for

Trenwick. The most specific allegation is that Baker & MacKenzie gave an erroneous

opinion to Trenwick regarding certain indentures. In that respect, the complaint does not,

as it could not for reasons I later explain, seek to bring a claim for breach of those

indentures, as the Litigation Trust does not possess the right to bring claims under those

indentures.

At the tail end of the complaint, the Litigation Trust purports to state a

professional malpractice claim against the advisors, the entire sum and substance of

which states:

140 141 142

. ¶ 121.

at ¶ 122.

80

Document info
Document views254
Page views254
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 02:40:23 UTC 2016
Pages90
Paragraphs2147
Words26791

Comments