I listed the parties above. This is direct from the court filings.
The Personal Guarantee Interest Rate DifferentialHaving prevailed on its causes of action demonstrating intentional, repeated, and persistent fraud by defendants, plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of defendants’ “ill-gotten gains.”Disgorgement is “the equitable remedy that deprives wrongdoers of their net profits fromunlawful activity.”Liu v Sec. & Exch.Comm’n, 140 S Ct 1936, 1937 (2020) (further statingthat “it would be inequitable that a wrongdoer should make a profit out of his own wrong”).Plaintiff’s expert, Michiel McCarty, testified reliably and convincinglythat defendants profited by paying lower interest rates on loans from Deutsche Bank ’s Private WealthManagementDivision, based on fraudulent SFCs, than the interest rates they would have paid under non-recourse loans simultaneously offered to them. He further testified that defendants profited by paying a lower interest rate on the 40 Wall Street Ladder Capital loan, based on a fraudulent SFC, than the interest rate on a non-recourse loan, and compared the terms of the then-existingCapital One non-recourse loan that 40 Wall Street was subject to before refinancing with LadderCapital. McCarty calculated the differences between interest rates and determined the following ill-gotteninterest savings, which this Court hereby adopts as the most reasonable approximation of the ill-gotten interest rate savings upon which evidence was presented at trial: (1) $72,908,308 from2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3)$17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the40
Um.... no.
