Here’s a breakdown of the provided text, focusing on the legal proceedings and arguments:
Key Allegations and Findings:
SSCP’s breach of Fiduciary Duty: SSCP failed in its fiduciary duties to Smiley Slice by:
Conditioning GCP Cici’s distributions on signing a general release of all claims.
Charging Smiley Slice an excessive management fee.
Causing Smiley Slice to loan $7.9 million to purchase a franchise for a different restaurant.
Conspiracy: OnWin and SSCP were found to be part of a conspiracy to damage GCP Cici’s.
Dharod’s counterclaims: Dharod lost all his counterclaims against Gala.
Jury’s Award:
Loan Interest: $320,000 for the total interest paid by Smiley Slice on the restaurant franchise loan.
Underpayment of Distributions: $3,039,252 for the underpayment of distributions to GCP cici’s.
Excessive Management Fee: $20 million for the management fee paid by Smiley Slice beyond what the jury deemed reasonable.
Unresolved Matters:
Attorney fees.
Equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty.
Piercing the corporate veil.
Closing Arguments – Plaintiff’s Counsel (Yang):
Theme: The trial was about the character of Dharod and Gala.
Personal Connection: Yang shared a personal connection with Dharod’s immigrant story, highlighting the importance of how success is handled.
Accusation: Dharod used his wealth, success, power, and privilege to harm Gala, whose family gave him the opportunity. yang alleged Dharod “used” his family and Gala by violating his fiduciary duty.
Request for Exemplary Damages: yang asked the jury to award exemplary damages of two times the compensatory damages to send a strong message to Dharod that his behavior was unacceptable, especially as Gala was “trapped” in the relationship.
Closing Arguments – Defendant’s Counsel (Slifer):
Defense of Dharod: Slifer stated Dharod was “only trying to do the right thing.”
Critique of Plaintiff’s Tactics: Slifer criticized the plaintiff’s lawyers for focusing on minor details (personal chef, company cars, ordering Chick-fil-A) to embarrass witnesses and distract from the core issues. She characterized these as “jabs,” “bullying,” and attempts to distract.
Focus on Contracts: Slifer urged the jury to look at the language of the contracts. Reaction to Exemplary Damages request: Slifer expressed pleasure that the jury did not award the requested exemplary damages, stating they respected the jury’s time and that the plaintiff’s counsel’s request was an invitation to “punish” her client.
Appellate Options: Slifer indicated they were considering their appellate options.
Emotional Toll: Slifer acknowledged that the emotion of the case had taken a toll on both sides.
In essence, the text describes a legal battle where a jury found a party (SSCP/Dharod) liable for breaching fiduciary duties and engaging in a conspiracy, resulting in meaningful financial awards. The closing arguments reveal contrasting narratives about the motivations and conduct of the parties involved, with the plaintiff emphasizing character and the defendant focusing on contractual obligations and perceived unfair tactics.
