Opinion ID: 1189498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dye's Representation of Eriksen

Text: As a result of his investment, Eriksen was a limited partner in an AFI entity. Eriksen was privy to the misconduct at AFI because Meister had told him about it. See Dep. of Meister 63, Feb. 24, 2005. (Eriksen's deposition testimony was stricken by the bankruptcy court as untimely, and that ruling has not been challenged in this appeal.) In June, 1998, Eriksen hired Dye to assist him in his efforts to withdraw his investment moniesEisenberg allegedly had told Eriksen that AFI needed to obtain new investor money in order to pay him. See Dep. of Meister 57-60. Eisenberg also testified that he told Dye that Meister's alleged misconduct was a reason not to pay Eriksen. Dep. of Eisenberg 40-41. However, when Dye was questioned as to whether Eisenberg had ever implicated Meister to her in regards to operational misconduct, she stated that he never mentioned Mr. Meister as being involved. Dep. of Dye 94. And, when Dye was asked whether Eriksen had said anything to her indicating that he thought there was financial misconduct at AFI, Dye gave a cautious response: Mr. Eriksen was a limited partner. He had no knowledge of what was going on in the office, particularly as it related to Mr. Eisenberg's dealings with limited partners. Id. Dye then negotiated a deal with Eisenberg to convert Eriksen's equity to debt, [3] and Eriksen was given a promissory note, dated August 31, 1998, for $52,327.29 payable from AFI. This amount was compromised and satisfied in May 1999, at which time a Release Agreement was purportedly signed. (Dye provided a copy of an unsigned, undated release agreement but the signed document was never produced.) However, a letter from Dye to Eisenberg, dated May 18,1999, was admitted into evidence, in which she stated: Mr. Eriksen will accept your settlement figure. However, he has asked that you issue two checks, one to his IRA Trustee for $12,697.66 and the second to my law firm for $1,250. Dye has not disputed the fact that those monies were paid, as indicated. See also Dye's Dep. Tr. Corr. [to p. 121], Feb. 28, 2005 (stating that the lump-sum payoff was performed).