5. In re Flight Transportation Corporation Securities Litigation v. Flight Transportation Corporation
Facts
Plaintiff Lund, a co-founder, outside director, shareholder, and officer of the Flight Transportation Corporation (FTC) asserted a conversion claim for payment of a check over a forged endorsement. the indemnity claim and filed a motion for summary judgment. He contended that the Fifth Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis ("Fifth Northwestern") is liable for the amount of $342,634.69, which transferred the check by its endorsement and received payment for it from American National. The back of the check endorsements indicating the signatures of Rubin (a shareholder, director, and the president of FTC) and Lund. He alleged that he never learned of the check.
Issue
The issue is whether the endorsement of the other partner is valid if the partnership exists.
Rules
The Uniform Partnership Act, adopted by Minnesota, Minn.Stat. §§ 323.01 et seq. defines a partnership as "as association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit." Minn.Stat. § 323.02 subd 8
Any person having authority from the partnership or association to whose order the instrument is payable may endorse or otherwise deal with the instrument.
Application
Yes, the endorsement is valid because there is a partnership between Lund and Rubin. They are co-owners for profit and engaged in a series of acts directed toward an end.
Norwest, as a collection bank, accepted the check and made payment to FTC, contending that Lund and Robin were partners engaged in the purchase, lease, and sale of aircraft. Since American National Bank issued a cashier’s check payable to the order of Rubin and Lund in the amount of proceeds, this matter focuses on partnership, not corporation.
Although Lund denied s a partnership existance, and even if a partnership existed, Rubin forged Lund’s signature for the insurance proceeds, which remained after paying off the outstanding balance due it on the financing to American National following the crash of their jet. However, there are facts indicating the relationship between them is partnership such as a joint account, co-owners for shared profit and and enraging in a series of acts toward an end. They bought six airplanes and carried out steps for their leasing and operation for benefits on their personal income tax returns.
P, further, claimed that when registering for FAA Registration Application, they checked off the box “co-owner.” However, a lot of factors indicate that they formed a partnership even if P would claim that there was no intent to form a partnership.
Conclusion
Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
(동영상 피드백)
Partnership 종류: 1. General partnership 2. Limited Partnership 3. Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
4. Limited Liability Corporation (LLC)
Norwest: Lund와 Rubin의 운영 계좌 보유.
American National Bank: Lund 와 Rubin 앞으로 수표 발행 - partnership 이론이 적용되는 이유
Norwest가 수표가 유효하다고 주장해야 하는 이유?
이것은 conversion 소송으로, 만약 인정이 되면, Rubin이 공동계좌에 넣었던 돈을 돌려줘야하는 상황이 발생하게 됨. 은행이 돈을 계좌에 보유해야 은행에 수익이 생기기 때문에 돈을 보유하고자 함. 따라서, Rubin의 서명이 유효하다고 주장.
공동계좌에 돈이 있으면 Lund에게도 이익인데, Lund 가 서명이 위조됐고, partnership이 아니라고 주장한 이유는?
SEC가 1982년 6월18일에 FTC와 Rubin을 상대로 proceedings를 시작 했고, Lund는 같은 해인 12월 2일에 Rubin 과 수표 발행 은행인 American National bank를 상대로 소송 제기. 즉, SEC proceedings 이후에 Lund는, 이 사건에서 책임을 면하기 위해 partnership이 아니라고 주장. 만약, Partnership이 인정되면, 공동책임을 지게 됨.
SEC가 이러한 절차를 시작한 이유는?
팩트를 보면, Lubin과 Rubin은 FTC라는 회사를 설립하여 주주 및 director 등이 되었고, 본인 회사에 투자하고, 개인적으로 항공기를 구매하여 FTC에 대여. FTC가 망해도 본인들은 lease 비용을 계속 받게 되는 구조.
Partnership 이라는 증거 - 공동 수익, 공동 소유자, 회사의 수익을 위해 함께 일한 과정들.
만약 Lund가 partnership을 만들 의도가 없다는 주장에 대해서는?
Partnership이라는 증거가 많이 있으므로, 의도가 없다는 주장은 소용 없음