He was "Lucky" on the ice but not so lucky with a close relationship.
Luc Robitaille and William "Boots" Del Biaggio were friends and business partners.
They both invested in the USHL’s Omaha Lancers back in 2004, along with a group that included Mario Lemieux and Mike Eruzione. Luc was also the President of the team.
They served together on the Board of Directors of Onco Petroleum, until they both resigned a few months back as the stock price plummeted.
For a while Luc was one of the front men in the quest to bring the NHL to the Sprint Centre, while AEG had an agreement with Del Biaggio, who would own the team.
Luc was reportedly the one who introduced Boots to AEG, which led to a relationship focused on bringing a team to Kansas City - which eventually led to the League welcoming a soon to be bankrupt minority owner who owed substantial funds to the owners of two other NHL teams.
In a San Francisco courtroom on Monday, a lawyer representing Luc Robitaille filed a complaint against William "Boots" Del Biaggio. The complaint alleges:
* On or about December 22nd, 2006, Robitaille and Del Biaggio each signed off on a promissory note with Pacific Capital Bank, allowing for a $2 million revolving line of credit to finance real estate and other assets purchased collectively by the two Partners. Robitaille and Del Biaggio agreed to seek and evaluate real estate and other assets and collectively determine whether to jointly purchase those assets. They further agreed that they would request advances under the Line of Credit to finance the purchase of such assets following the parties’ joint evaluation of assets they collectively intended to purchase.
* Del Biaggio solicited Robitaille to execute the Note and obtain the Line of Credit based on Del Biaggio’s representations that he had a net worth of several million dollars.
* On December 26, 2006, Del Biaggio sent correspondence to the Bank’s officer, stating “I need you to wire $1,100,000 into this account at Heritage Bank.” The referenced account was owned by Sand Hill Capital Partners, a Company owned by Del Biaggio that filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in June.
* On December 27, 2006, Del Biaggio sent additional correspondence to the Bank’s officer, stating “please wire the $2M less the loan fee to my wire instructions from yesterday.”
* Robitaille was not informed of the December 26, 2006 and December 27, 2006 requests and did not authorize either request. Del Biaggio cc’ed both requests to “Luc Robitaille” at an address that Del Biaggio knew was not active at that time. He referenced an inactive e-mail address for Robitaille in an effort to conceal the fact that he was obtaining funds from the Bank without Robitaille’s knowledge.
* The Bank advanced the requested $2,000,000.00 to Del Biaggio and his wholly-owned entity Sand Hill without Robitaille’s knowledge or consent. At no time did the Bank make any attempt to contact Robitaille to confirm his consent to the advances requested by Del Biaggio. Robitaille never received the funds advanced to Del Biaggio and did not receive any direct or indirect benefit from the Line of Credit.
* Del Biaggio subsequently failed to repay the funds advanced by the Bank and the Bank has declared the Line of Credit in default with regard to Robitaille.
On Tuesday a summons was issued on Del Biaggio:
Here are the charges listed from the complaint (note there’s no Count IV and I've replaced 'the debtor' with 'Del Biaggio'):
COUNT I - EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION
California law provides that, with regard to co-makers of a financial obligation, the party that receives the benefits of funds advanced is also responsible for the burden of repayment of those funds.
Del Biaggio is the only party that received the benefits of the funds advanced by the Bank. Accordingly, he is the party responsible for the burden of repaying those funds to the Bank.
Because Del Biaggio bears the burden of the financial obligations to the Bank, Robitaille is entitled to an order from this court for equitable contribution, stating that Del Biaggio is obligated to repay all funds advanced by the Bank and further stating that Robitaille has no liability under the Note and the Line of Credit.
COUNT II - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Del Biaggio has received the benefit of at least $2,000,000.00 as a result of his fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from the Bank.
Del Biaggio willingly and knowingly accepted such benefits to the detriment of Robitaille.
Del Biaggio continues to retain such benefits under circumstances that it would be inequitable and unjust enrichment for him to retain those benefits.
As a direct and proximate result of this unjust enrichment, Robitaille has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial and is entitled to judgment accordingly.
COUNT III - NON-DISCHARGEABILITY UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)
Robitaille’s claims against Del Biaggio arise out of fraudulent misrepresentations made by Del Biaggio in connection with Del Biaggio’s scheme to obtain $2,000,000.00 from the Bank.
In particular, Debtor represented that he would use the line of credit with the Bank only for the purposes of investing in real estate and other assets to be purchased collectively by Robitaille and Del Biaggio. Additionally, Debtor represented that he would not obtain or use the line of credit without first obtaining the consent and agreement of Robitaille. Each of these representations was fraudulent.
Each of the misrepresentations was material in that they induced Robitaille to execute the Note under which the Bank now asserts claims against Robitaille.
Del Biaggio knew that the representations were false at the time that he made them to Robitaille and intended that Robitaille rely upon the misrepresentations. Robitaille did not know that the misrepresentations were false at the time Del Biaggio made them.
Robitaille relied upon the false representations made by Del Biaggio and was damaged as a result.
Accordingly, Robitaille’s claims against Del Biaggio constitute claims for money and an extension of credit which were obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, which renders such claims non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
COUNT V - NON-DISCHARGEABILITY UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4)
The nature of the relationship between Del Biaggio and Robitaille gave rise to fiduciary obligations which Del Biaggio breached when he obtained the funds from the line of credit with the Bank.
Del Biaggio’s conduct, as described herein, constitutes fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement and/or larceny and renders Del Biaggio’s indebtedness to Robitaille non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).
COUNT VI - NON-DISCHARGEABILITY UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)
Del Biaggio’s conduct, as described herein, constitutes willful and malicious injury by Del Biaggio to Robitaille, which renders Del Biaggio’s obligations to Robitaille non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
Robitaille is asking the court to rule:
1. That Del Biaggio owes an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest, costs, expenses, disbursements and attorney’s fees.
2. That the debt is excepted from discharge, meaning that he is still legally required to pay the debts, despite the bankruptcy filing.
3. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Pretty much everybody has had a friendship in their life that turned sour but this one takes it to the extreme.
Fraud, Larceny, Willful & Malicious Injury...
With friends like Boots, who needs enemies? (allegedly)
Danny –
[email protected]
Join the Discussion:
»