FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 13, 2008
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
R. KIMBALL MOSIER, in his
capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee of
National School Fitness Foundation;
SCHOOL FITNESS SYSTEMS, LLC,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. No. 07-4238
CALLISTER, NEBEKER &
MCCULLOUGH, a professional
corporation; LELAND S.
MCCULLOUGH; BRADLEY E.
MORRIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
(D. Ct. No. 2:06-CV-00677-TS)
George B. Hoffmann, Parsons Kinghorn Harris, Salt Lake City, Utah (James E.
Morton, S. Brook Millard, and Christopher J. Rogers, Morton and Millard, PLLC,
Salt Lake City, Utah, on the briefs), appearing for Appellants.
Jefferson W. Gross (Richard D. Burbidge, with him on the brief), Burbidge
Mitchell & Gross, Salt Lake City, Utah, appearing for Appellees.
Before TACHA and HARTZ, Circuit Judges, and DEGIUSTI, * District Judge
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant R. Kimball Mosier is the trustee (“Trustee”) of the
bankruptcy estate of the National School Fitness Foundation (“NSFF”), a not-for-
profit corporation that sold physical fitness equipment and programs to school
districts across the United States prior to filing for bankruptcy in 2004.
Defendants-Appellees are the law firm of Callister, Nebeker, & McCullough, and
two of the firm’s attorneys, Bradley E. Morris and Leland S. McCullough
(collectively, “CNM”). The Trustee filed this suit against CNM for professional
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy. The Trustee alleged that
CNM failed to advise NSFF that it was operating unlawfully and failed to disclose
certain conflicts of interest inherent in its representation of NSFF. The district
court granted summary judgment in favor of CNM under the doctrine of in pari
delicto, 1 holding that the wrongdoing of NSFF was far greater than any
wrongdoing of CNM. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
*
Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti, District Judge for the Western District of
Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
1
This doctrine represents the principle “that a plaintiff who has participated
in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing.” Black’s
Law Dictionary 806 (8th ed. 2004).
-2-
we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
In April 2000, NSFF was organized as a Utah not-for-profit corporation. It
held itself out as a charitable organization that provided physical fitness
programs, including fitness equipment and a curriculum, to schools throughout
the United States. It also applied to the IRS for designation as a § 501(c)(3) tax-
exempt entity.
From July 2001 through April 2004, NSFF utilized a business model called
the “Leasing Model.” This model generally worked as follows: (1) NSFF
solicited schools to purchase its physical fitness programs; (2) interested schools
were directed to enter into a sales contract with a for-profit company organized by
NSFF’s principals, called School Fitness Systems, LLC (“SFS”); (3) the schools
paid SFS directly and financed the purchase by obtaining a three-year, non-
recourse lease from an institutional lender; (4) NSFF entered into a “contribution
agreement” with each school through which NSFF contracted to make monthly
payments to the school in an amount equal to the monthly lease obligation the
school owed to its institutional lender; (5) after receiving payment from the
schools, SFS kicked back approximately 50% of those proceeds to NSFF; (6)
NSFF agreed to repay the schools the full purchase price for the physical fitness
program over the course of the three-year lease and advertised the program as
“free” to the schools.
-3-
Each contribution agreement stated, either expressly or implicitly, that the
source of NSFF’s monthly payments to the schools would derive from charitable
contributions or government grants. NSFF, however, never received charitable
contributions or government grants in any appreciable amount. Instead, it paid
nearly all of its monthly obligations under its contribution agreements from
proceeds it received from sales of physical fitness programs to other schools.
Under its Leasing Model, NSFF was therefore operating a fraudulent “Ponzi”
scheme. 2 Because it never had sufficient assets, grants, or charitable
contributions to meet its obligations to the schools, and because the stream of
revenue from SFS’s sales to new schools was insufficient to fund NSFF’s
continuing obligations to previously solicited schools, NSFF incurred a mounting,
unfunded liability that eventually led to its insolvency and petition for bankruptcy
on June 1, 2004.
The law firm of Ray, Quinney, & Nebeker (“RQN”) represented NSFF
from the inception of the Leasing Model until November 2003. During this
period, NSFF affirmed to RQN that it was either receiving—or was confident it
would soon be receiving—substantial government or charitable funding. As it
2
A Ponzi scheme is “[a] fraudulent investment scheme in which money
contributed by later investors generates artificially high dividends for the original
investors, whose example attracts even larger investments. Money from the new
investors is used directly to repay or pay interest to earlier investors, usually
without any operation or revenue-producing activity other than the continual
raising of new funds.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1198 (8th ed. 2004).
-4-
became clear to RQN that NSFF was having difficulty raising funds, RQN
repeatedly warned NSFF that unless it obtained substantial contributions or grant
monies, it risked losing its tax-exempt status and would be susceptible to civil
and criminal penalties.
In an August 2002 letter to Cameron Lewis, NSFF’s chief executive officer,
RQN specifically advised NSFF that if at any time it became substantially likely
that NSFF would be unable to meet its financial commitments under its contracts
with the schools, it should cease its operations immediately and pay off as many
of its obligations as possible, rather than expose itself to liability for fraudulent
misrepresentations and for operating a Ponzi scheme. During the subsequent
fourteen months, RQN repeated this message to NSFF board members until in an
October 2003 letter to J. Tyrone (“Ty”) Lewis, NSFF’s chairman of the board, it
counseled NSFF to immediately discontinue enrolling new schools in its fitness
program and to pay as many of its financial obligations as it could. RQN again
relayed that advice to NSFF during a November 2003 board meeting attended by
Cameron and Ty Lewis and seven other directors and officers. NSFF responded
by ignoring this counsel, terminating its relationship with RQN, and continuing to
solicit its fitness program to more and more schools, even as it careened toward
inevitable ruin.
Shortly thereafter, NSFF sought CNM’s counsel regarding its tax-exempt
status. CNM’s representation of NSFF was relatively brief and somewhat limited.
-5-
It is undisputed, however, that CNM never advised NSFF to change its Leasing
Model or otherwise warned NSFF of its potential liability for operating a Ponzi
scheme.
After NSFF filed for bankruptcy, the Trustee filed an adversary complaint
against nine of NSFF’s directors and officers, including Cameron and Ty Lewis.
The Trustee alleged that those directors and officers did not heed the advice
provided by NSFF’s legal counsel and had made numerous misrepresentations to
schools and school districts in order to perpetuate NSFF’s business operations, all
to the detriment of NSFF. The parties ultimately settled, with the defendants
disclaiming any liability to the Trustee. Later, however, a Minnesota federal
grand jury indicted Cameron and Ty Lewis on multiple charges of fraud in
connection with their operation of NSFF. A jury found them guilty of thirty-three
and thirty-two felony counts respectively, including mail fraud, wire fraud, bank
fraud, and money laundering.
On May 30, 2006, the Trustee filed this suit against CNM in Utah state
court, alleging state-law claims of professional negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 3 The complaint sought damages allegedly
3
The same day, the Trustee filed a similar suit against RQN in Utah state
court. After RQN removed the case to federal district court, the court entered
summary judgment in favor of RQN based on the doctrine of in pari delicto.
Mosier v. Quinney, No. 2:06-CV-519, 2007 WL 2688245, at *1 (D. Utah Sept. 11,
(continued...)
-6-
incurred as a result of CNM’s failure to advise NSFF that it was operating an
illegal Ponzi scheme. On January 12, 2007, after CNM had removed the case to
federal district court, CNM filed four motions for summary judgment. The first
motion asserted that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred the Trustee’s claims.
The Trustee filed its response to the motion on March 19.
After receiving leave to do so, the Trustee filed an amended complaint on
April 16, 2007. In it, the Trustee dropped the claim for negligent
misrepresentation and added two new claims for fraud and civil conspiracy based
on allegations that CNM subordinated NSFF’s interests to those of Cameron
Lewis, whom CNM purportedly represented in matters adverse to NSFF. On June
29, in accordance with an order from the court, the Trustee filed an amended
opposition to CNM’s motion for summary judgment. On October 9, 2007 the
district court issued a memorandum decision and order granting CNM’s motion
for summary judgment under the doctrine of in pari delicto. The district court
ruled that “[a]s a matter of law, any wrongdoing on behalf of the Defendants was
substantially less than that of NSFF. As a result, the Trustee, standing in the
shoes of NSFF, is barred from bringing this action under the doctrine of in pari
delicto.” Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker, & McCullough, 2:06-CV-677TS, 2007 WL
2973264, at *3 (D. Utah Oct. 9, 2007). The Trustee appeals the order of summary
3
(...continued)
2007).
-7-
judgment.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review the grant of a summary judgment motion de novo, applying the
same standards as the district court.” Proctor v. United Parcel Serv., 502 F.3d
1200, 1205 (10th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We view all evidence and draw
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1070 (10th Cir. 2004). We may affirm
the district court’s decision for any reason supported by the record. Amro v.
Boeing Co., 232 F.3d 790, 796 (10th Cir. 2000).
III. DISCUSSION
The doctrine of in pari delicto “derives from the Latin, in pari delicto
potior est conditio defendentis: In a case of equal or mutual fault . . . the position
of the [defending] party . . . is the better one.” Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards,
Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 306 (1985) (quotations omitted). It “is grounded on
two premises: first, that courts should not lend their good offices to mediating
disputes among wrongdoers; and second, that denying judicial relief to an
admitted wrongdoer is an effective means of deterring illegality. ” Id. (footnote
omitted). The Supreme Court further explained that “the equitable defense of in
pari delicto . . . is rooted in the common-law notion that a plaintiff’s recovery
-8-
may be barred by his own wrongful conduct.” Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 632
(1988).
When that wrongful conduct is perpetrated by a debtor who subsequently
files for bankruptcy, courts have held that the “defense of in pari delicto is
available in an action by a bankruptcy trustee against another party [pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)]4 if the defense could have been raised against the debtor.”
Grassmueck v. Am. Shorthorn Ass’n, 402 F.3d 833, 837 (8th Cir. 2005). We, too,
have explained that when a trustee asserts a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 541, as is the
case here, “the trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and can take no greater
rights than the debtor himself had.” Sender v. Simon, 84 F.3d 1299, 1305 (10th
Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted).
Thus, it is well established that in pari delicto may bar an action by a
bankruptcy trustee against third parties who participated in or facilitated wrongful
conduct of the debtor. See, e.g., Grassmueck, 402 F.3d 833, 841–42 (holding that
bankruptcy trustee was barred under in pari delicto from bringing negligence
claims against parties who facilitated the debtor’s fraudulent investments when
the debtor knew the investments were fraudulent); Official Comm. of the
Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d
4
A trustee in bankruptcy may commence two types of actions on behalf of
the debtor estate: “(1) actions brought by the trustee as a successor to the debtor’s
interests included as property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541, and (2) actions
brought under one of the trustee’s avoidance powers.” Sender v. Simon, 84 F.3d
1299, 1304 (10th Cir. 1996).
-9-
147, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (in pari delicto barred action against the debtor’s
accounting firm for breach of fiduciary duty based on its failure to disclose
negative information relating to an impending merger and acquisition when the
debtor was itself aware of the information); Official Comm. of Unsecured
Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., 267 F.3d 340, 357–60 (3d Cir. 2001) (in pari
delicto barred action against the debtor’s attorney and accountant, among other
third parties, for their participation in the debtor’s Ponzi scheme when the debtor
orchestrated the scheme); Terlecky v. Hurd (In re Dublin Sec., Inc.), 133 F.3d
377, 380–81 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that a debtor who intentionally defrauded
investors could not recover, based on the defense of in pari delicto, from lawyers
who knew about but failed to apprise the debtor of the fraud); Sender v. Buchanan
(In re Hedged-Investments Assocs.), 84 F.3d 1281, 1284 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding
that a trustee could not recover from an investor in a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by
the debtor, citing “the elementary principle that one who has himself participated
in a violation of law cannot be permitted to assert in a court of justice any right
founded upon or growing out of the illegal transaction”).
In this case, the criminal convictions of NSFF’s CEO, Cameron Lewis, and
its chairman of the board, Ty Lewis, establish that these individuals knowingly
and intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud schools across the United States
through NSFF’s Leasing Model. By way of contrast, there is no evidence
suggesting that CNM’s conduct is as or more blameworthy than that of the
-10-
Lewises. The evidence shows only that CNM failed to counsel NSFF to cease its
operations or otherwise explain that the Leasing Model was operating as an illegal
Ponzi scheme, and NSFF had received and ignored that same counsel when it was
given by RQN. The Trustee offers no evidence that CNM made fraudulent
misrepresentations, participated in any form of felony conduct, or that it
affirmatively counseled NSFF to continue operating in the face of financial ruin.
Thus, the district court held as a matter of law that NSFF’s misconduct, as
evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than CNM’s
fault in failing to counsel NSFF.
On appeal, the Trustee contends that the district court improperly attributed
the Lewises’ misconduct to NSFF. The Trustee recognizes the rule that the
actions of corporate officers and directors are generally imputed to the
corporation itself, but the Trustee maintains that the “adverse interest exception”
applies in this case because the Lewises acted in their own interest rather than
pursuing some advantage for NSFF. See, e.g., Thabault v. Chait, 541 F.3d 512,
527 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[F]raudulent conduct will not be imputed if the officer’s
interests were adverse to the corporation and not for the benefit of the
corporation.”). It is clear, however, that the Lewises did in fact pursue
advantages for NSFF through their fraudulent activities, including illegally
perpetuating NSFF’s status a § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity. Moreover, the
Lewises were not alone in directing NSFF's misconduct. The NSFF board
-11-
decided to continue NSFF's operations even after the November 2003 board
meeting at which RQN warned seven directors and officers, in addition to the
Lewises, about the impropriety of enrolling new schools in its fitness program.
We therefore hold that the adverse interest exception does not apply.
The Trustee also argues that the relative fault of NSFF and CNM is a
question of fact that cannot be determined at the summary judgment stage. We
disagree. In this case, the underlying facts are not disputed, and no reasonable
jury could conclude from those facts that CNM’s conduct is more culpable than
that of NSFF. 5 Thus, the district court could properly enter summary judgment
in favor of CNM based on its defense of in pari delicto. Cf. Coopers & Lybrand,
LLP, 322 F.3d at 164 (rejecting the argument that the issue of relative fault in an
in pari delicto defense presents a “quintessential fact question[] for the jury” and
affirming dismissal on the pleadings) (quotations omitted); In re Dublin Sec.,
Inc., 133 F.3d at 380 (on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim in a case where the defendants allegedly failed to apprise the debtor that it
was engaging in illegal activity, allegations that the debtor intentionally
defrauded investors constitutes “purposeful conduct [that] establishes
5
On appeal, the Trustee relies on the affidavit of James Fishman to argue
that CNM’s conduct is more culpable than NSFF’s. This affidavit, however, was
not submitted as part of the Trustee’s response to CNM’s motion for summary
judgment. Rather, it was filed three months later and without the requisite leave
of court. Therefore, we do not consider it on appeal. See Aero-Medical, Inc. v.
United States, 23 F.3d 328, 329 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994).
-12-
conclusively that the debtors were at least as culpable as the defendants” and
therefore supports the in pari delicto defense as a matter of law).
We further reject the Trustee’s contention that in pari delicto is
inapplicable here because the defense will produce an inequitable result.
Specifically, the Trustee contends that applying the defense against a bankruptcy
trustee in an adversary proceeding shields the wrongdoing defendant at the
expense of the debtor’s innocent creditors. We, however, have previously
rejected the argument that a trustee in bankruptcy is immune to in pari delicto and
other defenses based on the debtor’s misconduct, reasoning that § 541 gives the
trustee no greater rights than the debtor would have had if it had instituted the
action. See In re Hedged-Investments Assocs., 84 F.3d at 1284–86. Other courts
have reached the same conclusion. See Grassmueck, 402 F.3d at 836 (“[T]he
equitable defense of in pari delicto is available in an action by a bankruptcy
trustee against another party if the defense could have been raised against the
debtor.”); R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc., 267 F.3d at 355–56 (applying in pari delicto
against a committee of creditors appointed by the bankruptcy trustee because the
trustee is “subject to the same defenses as could have been asserted by the
defendant had the action been instituted by the debtor”). Thus, the Trustee’s
argument on this point is without merit.
Finally, the Trustee makes two arguments related solely to his fraud and
conspiracy claims. Those claims are based on allegations that CNM treated its
-13-
representation of NSFF as subordinate to its representation of Cameron and Ty
Lewis. In particular, the Trustee alleges that Mr. Morris and/or Callister, Nebeker
& McCullough fraudulently advised NSFF to pay the Lewises and others nearly
two million dollars to which they were not entitled. On appeal from the district
court’s entry of summary judgment against the Trustee on these claims, the
Trustee first argues that the doctrine of in pari delicto does not apply because
NSFF is an innocent victim of CNM’s intentional and fraudulent conduct. But
even assuming that in pari delicto would not stand as a bar in such a case, the
Trustee has not pointed to any evidence that supports his allegations. In his
response to CNM’s motion for summary judgment, the Trustee cited testimony
from Mr. Morris’s deposition that Mr. Morris had previously represented
Cameron Lewis. The timing and extent of the representation is not clear from the
portion of the deposition included in the record. The Trustee further cited to the
depositions of two former NSFF employees, both of whom testified that they
knew Mr. Morris had previously represented Cameron Lewis, and one of whom
testified that Mr. Morris disclosed the conflict of interest and that NSFF retained
other counsel to represent it in dealings involving Mr. Lewis.
The Trustee cites only to statements in his own affidavit to support his
allegations that CNM’s representation of Cameron and/or Ty Lewis amounted to a
fraud on NSFF and resulted in NSFF paying out millions of dollars to the Lewises
and others. The Trustee’s own statements, however, are not based on personal
-14-
knowledge of the events in question and thus do not create a material issue of fact
with respect to his fraud and civil conspiracy claims. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1111 (10th Cir. 1991) (explaining that at the summary judgment stage,
“the nonmovant’s affidavits must be based upon personal knowledge and set forth
facts that would be admissible in evidence; conclusory and self-serving affidavits
are not sufficient” to create a genuine issue of material fact). Therefore, because
the Trustee did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find for
him on those claims, summary judgment was proper even without application of
the in pari delicto defense. See Amro, 232 F.3d at 796 (noting that we may affirm
the district court’s decision for any reason supported by the record).
In his second point regarding the fraud and civil conspiracy claims, the
Trustee argues that he did not have notice that those claims were subject to
CNM’s motion for summary judgment. The Trustee contends that because CNM
filed its motion for summary judgment approximately three months before he
amended his complaint to add the fraud and civil conspiracy claims, the district
court should have notified him that it was considering CNM’s motion as to all of
the Trustee’s claims—including the newly-added claims. It is clear from the
record, however, that the Trustee had such notice as well as an opportunity to
present arguments and evidence against the motion. Although the Trustee
initially filed his response to CNM’s summary judgment motion before he
amended his complaint, he was later permitted to file an amended response two
-15-
months after the amended complaint. In addition, CNM’s reply memorandum
clearly asserted that there was no evidence supporting the Trustee’s claims of
fraud and civil conspiracy. Approximately three months later, the district court
issued its order. At no time during that three-month period did the Trustee seek
leave of court to file a surreply to argue that summary judgment was
inappropriate as to the fraud and conspiracy claims. Thus, it is clear that the
Trustee had notice that the issue was under consideration and was given the
opportunity to be heard on it.
IV. CONCLUSION
The district court held that NSFF’s fault in making fraudulent
misrepresentations to schools and in conducting an illegal Ponzi scheme was
greater than the fault of CNM. In so holding, the district court did not err by
imputing the conduct of the Lewises to CNM, by applying the doctrine of in pari
delicto as a matter of law, or by applying the doctrine against a trustee in
bankruptcy. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s decision to grant CNM’s
motion for summary judgment based on the in pari delicto doctrine.
-16-