Opinion ID: 2520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motorola's Assignment of Claims

Text: The Uzans also argue that the judgment against them should be modified to discharge the award of compensatory damages to Motorolaapproximately $2.1 billionpursuant to the doctrine of election of remedies because Motorola assigned certain contractual claims to Bayindirbank as part of the Telsim settlement agreement, thereby forfeiting its ability to collect on a fraud judgment that satisfies the same injury. The District Court rejected this argument for several reasons, principally because the doctrine of election of remedies only applies where the second remedy is clearly inconsistent with the first. Motorola Credit Corp., 2009 WL 819041, at -2, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27377, at  (quoting Equitable Trust Co. v. Connecticut Brass & Mfg. Corp., 10 F.2d 913, 916 (2d Cir.1926)). The District Court concluded that there was nothing inconsistent about relinquishing certain claims in return for a partial recovery while reserving the right to recover the balance from defendants. The Court also noted that, as a matter of common sense, a double recovery is impossible because Telsim operates as a shell corporation and has no assets. We fully agree with the District Court's determinations.