I was referring to the histrionics. :-)
I am not familiar with any of the facts beyond what I've read at the link, but with that caveat (and my observation that this is getting well beyond this board's focus), it would appear that that evidence would only be relevant to a "piercing the corporate veil" argument that Mr. Trepp has presumably made. Otherwise, "releasing" Mr. Luftig would not be before the court. Piercing is a state law concept, not a bankruptcy concept, but the bankruptcy court can and does adjudicate that claim when it is (properly) raised. To my knowledge, piercing would require a proof of fraud (or maybe something close to it) and I am not sure I see that here (but again, I am only as good as what I read). Maybe this gets closer to answering your original question which was broader than my original mindset when I read it. I hope so. |
