Case Law Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc.

Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (153) Cited in (91) Related

492 B.R. 707

Steven Z. JURISTA, as Disbursing Agent under First Amended Liquidating Plan of Reorganization of Jermax, Inc. d/b/a Gulf & Northern Trading Corporation, Plaintiff,

v.AMERINOX PROCESSING, INC., Robert Carter, Seth Young, Arthur Gerwitz, and General Electric Capital Corporation, Defendants.

Civ. No. 12–3825 (NLH/JS).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

April 5, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Leonard C. Walczyk, Esquire, Wasserman, Jurista & Stolz, P.C., Millburn, NJ, for Plaintiff Steven Z. Jurista, as Disbursing Agent for Jermax, Inc., d/b/a Gulf & Northern Trading Corporation.

Ronald L. Glick, Esquire, Stevens & Lee, Lawrenceville, NJ, for Defendant Amerinox Processing, Inc.

John Vena Fiorella, Esquire, Archer & Greiner, PC, Haddonfield, NJ, for Defendants Robert Carter and Seth Young.

Evan A. Blaker, Esquire, Byler & Blaker, LLC, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Defendant Arthur Gerwitz.

Lisa S. Bonsall, Esquire, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, for Defendant General Electrical Capital Corporation.

AMENDED OPINION

HILLMAN, District Judge.1

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Factual Background and Procedural History ¦727 ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Standing                                  ¦731 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Constitutional Standing        ¦731 ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦  ¦B.¦Prudential Standing            ¦733 ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦  ¦C.¦In Pari Delicto   Defense      ¦735 ¦
+------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦The Motion to Strike                                   ¦739   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Standard of Law Under Rule 12(f)  ¦740 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Discussion of the Motion to Strike¦740 ¦
+----------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦The Motion to Dismiss                     ¦743 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Standard of Law Under Rule 12(b)(6)¦743 ¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Discussion of the Motion to Dismiss¦745 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Fraud Claims                    ¦745 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦i.  ¦Counts 1 and 8: Avoidance and Recovery of        ¦745    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦    ¦Fraudulent Transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2) ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦    ¦Counts 2, 4, 9 and 11: Avoidance and Recovery of ¦       ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦ii. ¦Fraudulent Transfers under N.J.S.A. §§ 25:2–25(a)¦746    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦    ¦(b) and 25:2–27(a)(b)                            ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+----+-------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦    ¦Counts 3 and 10: Avoidance and Recovery of       ¦       ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦iii.¦Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 ¦750    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦    ¦(a)(1)                                           ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Count 5: Conversion                                   ¦753    ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦Count 6: Unjust Enrichment                            ¦753    ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦4. ¦Count 7: Turnover under 11 U.S.C. § 542               ¦755    ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦5. ¦Count 13: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Goo d     ¦756    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Faith and Fair Dealing                                ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦6. ¦Count 14: Breaches of Fiduciary Duties                ¦758    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦i. ¦Fiduciary Duty of Care                  ¦760   ¦
+----+---+--+---+----------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦ii.¦Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty and Good Faith¦761   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦7. ¦Counts 15, 16, 21 and 22: The Aiding and Abetting     ¦762    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Claims                                                ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦8. ¦Count 17: Successor Liability                         ¦765    ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦9. ¦Count 18: Piercing the Corporate Veil                 ¦767    ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦10.¦Count 19: Misappropriation of Assets, Trade Secrets,  ¦770    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Proprietary Information and Other Assets              ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦11.¦Count 20: Constructive Trust                          ¦771    ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦12.¦Count 23: Avoidance of Post–Petition Transfers        ¦772    ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦13.¦Count 24: Avoidance and Recovery of Transfers to      ¦773    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Mediate and Immediate Transferees                     ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦The Cross–Motion for Imposition of Prejudgment Temporary       ¦       ¦
¦V.  ¦Restraints Against Transfers by Defendants Amerinox, Carter,   ¦776    ¦
¦    ¦Young, and Gerwitz                                             ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Likelihood of Success on the Merits¦778 ¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Irreparable Harm                   ¦781 ¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦C.¦Balance of the Equities            ¦782 ¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦D.¦The Public Interest                ¦783 ¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦E.¦The Bond Requirement               ¦783 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦VI.¦CONCLUSION                                ¦784 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

Currently pending before the Court are: (1) the Joint Motion to Strike or Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by Defendants Amerinox Processing, Inc., Robert Carter, Seth Young, and Arthur Gerwitz [Docket Nos. 14 & 16.]; 2 (2) Plaintiff Steven Z. Jurista's Cross–Motion for Imposition of Prejudgment Temporary Restraints Against Transfers by Defendants Amerinox, Carter, Young, and Gerwitz [Docket No. 19.]; and (3) the Motion to Dismiss Any and All Claims Asserted Against Defendant General Electric Capital Corporation [Docket No. 26.] For the reasons set forth below, Defendants Amerinox, Gerwitz, Young, and Carter's Motion to Strike will be denied, but their Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. Furthermore, Plaintiff's Cross–Motion will be denied, and Defendant General Electric Capital Corporation's Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant matter is an adversary proceeding stemming from the bankruptcy filing of Jermax, Inc. (“Jermax” or “Debtor”). Plaintiff Steven Z. Jurista has been appointed as the Disbursing Agent to represent the Debtor's interests in this suit. Jermax and corporate Defendant Amerinox Processing, Inc. (“Amerinox”) are stainless steel and aluminum processing corporations based in Camden, New Jersey. Amerinox is a corporate affiliate of and substantially owned by the same shareholders as Jermax. Individual Defendants Carter, Young, and Gerwitz (“individual Defendants” or “Insider Defendants”) are alleged to be the sole shareholders, officers, and directors of both Debtor Jermax and Defendant Amerinox. Defendant General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE”) previously provided financing for the Debtor.

According to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2019
Culwick v. Wood
"...Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc. , 8 N.Y.3d 43, 49-50, 860 N.E.2d 713, 827 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2006) ; accord Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc. , 492 B.R. 707, 753 (2013) (citation omitted) (stating the same rule under New Jersey law). Yet, even on plaintiff's account, Andrae Wood too..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2013
Wiseman v. First Mariner Bank
"...dates "or some other measure of precision and substantiation" of the particulars of the fraud alleged. Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 751 (D.N.J. 2013). See, e.g., Smith v. Bank of Am. Home Loans, _ F. Supp. 2d _, 2013 WL 4080325, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2013) (holdin..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2015
Martelli v. Golf
"...and free exercise of directorial decision-making from "judicial interference and constant hindsight." See Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 759 (D. N.J. 2013); see Maul v. Kirkman, 270 N.J. Super. 596, 614, 637 A.2d 928 (N.J. Super. 1994). The rule typically operates as a ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana – 2017
Ezell v. Payne
"...exercise of dominion and control over property owned by another [is] inconsistent with the owners' rights." Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 753 (D. N.J .2013) (citation omitted). A conversion claim consists of three elements: (1) the defendant wrongfully exercised domini..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2016
Begelman & Orlow, P.C. v. Ferara, Civil Action No. 12-329
"...trust must be established by the movant by clear, definite, unequivocal and satisfactory evidence." Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 772 (D.N.J. 2013) (internal citations omitted). New Jersey employs a two-prong test to determine whether a constructive trust is warranted...."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2019
Culwick v. Wood
"...Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc. , 8 N.Y.3d 43, 49-50, 860 N.E.2d 713, 827 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2006) ; accord Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc. , 492 B.R. 707, 753 (2013) (citation omitted) (stating the same rule under New Jersey law). Yet, even on plaintiff's account, Andrae Wood too..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2013
Wiseman v. First Mariner Bank
"...dates "or some other measure of precision and substantiation" of the particulars of the fraud alleged. Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 751 (D.N.J. 2013). See, e.g., Smith v. Bank of Am. Home Loans, _ F. Supp. 2d _, 2013 WL 4080325, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2013) (holdin..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2015
Martelli v. Golf
"...and free exercise of directorial decision-making from "judicial interference and constant hindsight." See Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 759 (D. N.J. 2013); see Maul v. Kirkman, 270 N.J. Super. 596, 614, 637 A.2d 928 (N.J. Super. 1994). The rule typically operates as a ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana – 2017
Ezell v. Payne
"...exercise of dominion and control over property owned by another [is] inconsistent with the owners' rights." Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 753 (D. N.J .2013) (citation omitted). A conversion claim consists of three elements: (1) the defendant wrongfully exercised domini..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2016
Begelman & Orlow, P.C. v. Ferara, Civil Action No. 12-329
"...trust must be established by the movant by clear, definite, unequivocal and satisfactory evidence." Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 772 (D.N.J. 2013) (internal citations omitted). New Jersey employs a two-prong test to determine whether a constructive trust is warranted...."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.