A suit for damages and unjust enrichment over acquisition financing and share transactions

A company and its manager sued a financing broker for damages and return of unjust enrichment over money transactions that took place during the financing of a corporate acquisition and related share transactions.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had obtained money by fraud in connection with share purchases and had received interest above the statutory maximum rate in the lending process.

Attorney Jaehoon Lee represented the defendant and contested liability for damages and the obligation to return unjust enrichment in a civil suit filed separately from the related criminal case.

The main issues were the actual nature of the money paid during the company's financing and share transactions and to whom it belonged, whether the defendant had committed a tort, and whether any loss had occurred.

Also at issue were whether the defendant was the party that directly lent the money or merely a financing broker, and whether liability to return unjust enrichment arose for amounts paid above the statutory maximum interest rate.

Other issues were the evidentiary weight in the civil suit of the facts found in the related criminal judgment, and whether the statute of limitations on the tort damages claim had run.

Attorney Lee analyzed the financing agreements, financial transaction records, share transaction records and the witness examination transcripts from the related criminal case, and mapped out the actual structure of the money transactions and the flow of funds.

In particular, based on the point that the defendant had not provided the loans directly but had brokered the financing, he argued separately about where the loan principal and interest ultimately went and whether the defendant had obtained any unjust enrichment.

He also analyzed how the payments relating to the share transactions came about and the record of loan repayments, and contested whether the tort and loss claimed by the plaintiffs had occurred.

In addition, he reviewed the relationship between the facts found in the related criminal judgment and the evaluation of evidence in the civil trial, and argued that the statute of limitations on the damages claim had run, based on when the plaintiffs filed their criminal complaint and when they became aware of the loss and of the person responsible.