Opinion ID: 3021453
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Seitz sues Detweiler

Text: Seitz sued Detweiler in July 2003. His complaint contained four causes of action: (1) malpractice; (2) “deepening insolvency”;6 (3) breach of fiduciary duty; and (4) negligent the income tax basis of accounting. If the omitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user’s conclusions about the Company’s assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, and expenses. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. 6 We note in passing that, although Seitz was never able to make up his mind which section of the Bankruptcy Code purportedly allowed his claim—suggesting in his opening brief that he was proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 544 and claiming at oral argument that he was not proceeding under § 544—we agree with the District Court for the District of Delaware that deepening insolvency is not a § 544 claim. See Stanziale v. 8 misrepresentation. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Seitz’s fiduciary duty claim. Later, after withdrawing the reference to the Bankruptcy Court of this adversary proceeding, the District Court granted summary judgment to Detweiler on the negligent misrepresentation claim. Finally, the District Court granted summary judgment to Detweiler on Seitz’s malpractice and deepening-insolvency claims. Seitz appeals only the ruling on the latter two claims.