On November 26, 2012, the U.S. Trustee (“Responsible Person”) in charge for Signature Apparel filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint against Defendants Lauritas, individually. The allegations are another blow to Mommy of the Year and her Shady Businessman husband.
The Declaration of Counsel in Support of the Motion to Amend the Complaint details the alleged deceit of Chris Laurita and his counsel in attempting to hide assets from the Bankruptcy Court. This alleged deceit began to unravel with production of documents and email by Third Persons that were served with Subpoena.
Specifically, the Lauritas filed Schedules and a Statement of Financial Affairs with the Bankruptcy Court where they failed to disclose licensing agreements (for manufacturing and distribution of goods) with Rocawear and Iconix. Paragraph 6 of Declaration
The Trustee seeks to amend the Complaint based upon the incomplete and/or what “appear to have been false” statements made by Lauritas.
The Court was advised of counsel for Lauritas’ deliberate delay in producing documents:
Notably, counsel for the Laurita Defendants attempted to delay production of documents to the “Responsible Person”, taking the position that the Laurita brothers’ permission was required prior to the production . . . This position was puzzling, given that the “Responsible Person” previously had received similar productions . . . At no previous time was the prior permission of the Laurita brothers deemed necessary . . .
Paragraph 16 of Declaration.
- On June 29, 2012, the Trustee received further confirmation that Signature Apparel’s former counsel was withholding documents. Signature’s former counsel took the following contradictory positions:
- At first, counsel stated it never represented the Lauritas or any entities owned or controlled by the Lauritas other than Signature;
- On April 5, 2012, counsel stated “it had done some corporate related work for Chris Laurita” but that it had “nothing to do with Signature;”
On April 24, 2012, former counsel produced the much anticipated Notice of Default for the licensing agreement. Contrary to Lauritas’ counsel statements, prior counsel still withheld documents.
While Creditors were owed in excess of $55 million dollars, the Lauritas sought to drain Signature Apparel so as to deprive creditors by financially benefiting the Laurita Brothers.