SAIPAN – Imperial Pacific International LLC has filed an opposition to USA Fanter Corp. Ltd.'s motion for appointment of receiver for sale of real property.
"The appointment of receiver is a drastic remedy that is to be deployed only sparingly in the most extreme circumstances upon a proper evidentiary showing," said attorney Stephen Nutting, who represents IPI in the construction contractor lawsuit.
In this case, Nutting said, a writ of execution has been issued over assets valued by USA Fanter at $3.25 million ($1 million more than USA Fanter's judgment with interest), and only two months ago, a receiver was appointed to liquidate many of these assets.
Remarkably, he added, USA Fanter now seeks the appointment of a second receiver to seize and liquidate separate assets that lie at the core of IPI's casino and resort project on Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
According to the lawyer, USA Fanter did not provide evidence as to how the forced disposition of a key part of the resort complex might impact the value and interests of other creditors and stakeholders and the extent to which the value realized might be grossly disproportionate to the losses of such other stakeholders.
Nutting said, "Overall, USA Fanter fails entirely to indicate why (its) already appointed receiver is not adequate to provide a basis for the extraordinary relief sought."
Despite its heavy pleading and evidentiary burden, Nutting said, USA Fanter's motion offers speculation and innuendo in place of required evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to show that a receiver is necessary or appropriate.
Nutting said USA Fanter concedes that there is no evidence of fraud on the part of IPI.
USA Fanter has not submitted any evidence that the property is in danger of being lost, concealed, injured, diminished in value or squandered, Nutting added.
"And USA Fanter fails to offer any evidence to support its bald assertions that IPI is insolvent," Nutting said.
He said USA Fanter does not present evidence, or even address, why it is unable to collect its judgment through other available means, "including through writ of execution already issued by the court and the limited receivership that the court has already approved."