agreeing that an evaluation of whether an employee of a Ponzi scheme provided value "should focus on the value of the goods and services provided rather.than on the impact that the goods and services had on the bankrupt enterprise” (quoting In re Universal Clearing House Co., 60 B.R. at 1000)
How later courts described this case
- agreeing that an evaluation of whether an employee of a Ponzi scheme provided value "should focus on the value of the goods and services provided rather.than on the impact that the goods and services had on the bankrupt enterprise” (quoting In re Universal Clearing House Co., 60 B.R. at 1000)
- concluding the value inquiry should focus on the yalue of the goods and services provided rather than on the impact that the goods and services had bn the bankrupt enterprise
- holding the corporate employee of a Ponzi scheme was not automatically barred from asserting her .affirmative defense to disgorgement of compensation received “for value and in good faith”
- finding that a significant expansion of the damages sought, from $10,000 to 1,017,647, constituted a “new issue”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CARNES, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur in this court’s opinion with the understanding that on remand after evidence is offered on the value of Orlick’s services and the jury returns its verdict on that issue, the court retains its usual authority and has the duty, upon proper motion, to decide any issue relating to the amount of the verdict. Our opinion neither expresses nor implies any view that Orlick’s services to ABS during the eighteen months she worked there were worth $1,167,037.19, which is the amount she was paid. Given the facts and circumstances in the record so far, it is utterly inconceivable that her services were worth that much, but how much less than that they were worth is up to the jury to determine in the first instance, subject to review thereafter by the court if the issue is properly raised.