Skatteforvaltningen v. Raubritter LLC Pension Plan
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:18-cv-04833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Skatteforvaltningen v. Raubritter LLC Pension Plan, Judge Kaplan entered fraud judgments and made judgments in 28 related cases final for appeal.
Skatteforvaltningen and the defendants consolidated for trial were affected by the fraud judgments and prejudgment-interest ruling. Defendants in 28 related cases with unresolved claims were affected by the direction to enter final judgments under Rule 54(b). The opinion does not specify Raubritter LLC Pension Plan's individual judgment.
What happened
Skatteforvaltningen v. Raubritter LLC Pension Plan is part of a larger group of Danish tax-refund cases consolidated for trial against some defendants. The jury found for Skatteforvaltningen under three alternative theories: fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and restitution.
The court entered judgment on the fraud claims because they produced the same amounts as the negligent-misrepresentation claims and larger amounts than the restitution claims. It also stated what judgments it would enter under the alternative theories if the fraud claims or both fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims had failed, and awarded prejudgment interest at 9 percent per year.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that 17 cases had no remaining claims and that 28 cases still involved defendants who had not been part of the consolidated trial. He found no just reason to delay and directed the Clerk to enter the judgments in those 28 cases as final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
The detailed version
- Skatteforvaltningen v. Raubritter LLC Pension Plan · No. 1:18-cv-04833
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
The memorandum concerns litigation consolidated under master docket 18-md-2865, including the cases listed in the opinion. The court consolidated the cases for trial as to all or some defendants and decided that separate judgments should be entered in each case.
A jury returned a special verdict for the plaintiff against the defendants who were consolidated for trial under three alternative theories: fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and restitution. The restitution theories were unjust enrichment, money had and received, and money paid by mistake. The opinion states that the amounts supported by the fraud claims were exactly the same as the amounts supported by the negligent-misrepresentation claims and greater than the amounts supported by the restitution claims.
Judgment and Interest
The court therefore stated that it would enter judgment on the fraud claims alone. It also held that, if there had been no liability for fraud, it would have entered judgments for the plaintiff in the same amounts on the negligent-misrepresentation claims. If there had been no liability on either the fraud or negligent-misrepresentation claims, it stated that it would have entered restitution judgments in the amounts described in the opinion, including judgments against named individuals and pension plans, in some instances jointly and severally. The opinion further states that those amounts would include prejudgment interest from the earliest ascertainable date on which each payment by the plaintiff was received through entry of the relevant judgment.
The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest at 9 percent per year under New York law, citing the reasons stated in the plaintiff's counsel's February 21, 2025 letter.
Remaining Defendants and Finality
The court stated that the judgments in 17 listed cases disposed of all remaining claims against all remaining parties. In the other 28 cases, one or more defendants who were not consolidated for the recent trial remained. The opinion describes those defendants as friends and family of Richard Markowitz or John van Merkensteijn and states that the court expected the remaining claims likely would be resolved through settlement, motions, or another process without trial.
The court found no just reason to delay final judgments in the 28 cases. It directed the Clerk, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), to enter those judgments as final judgments. This ruling was intended to permit a single appellate decision concerning the consolidated trial record and potentially facilitate resolution of the remaining claims.
Disposition
The court entered judgment on the fraud claims alone, awarded 9 percent annual prejudgment interest, and directed entry of final judgments under Rule 54(b) in the 28 cases with unresolved claims. The opinion does not identify which particular listed case corresponds to Raubritter LLC Pension Plan or state the specific judgment, if any, entered against that plan.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.