SEGARRA MIRANDA v. RD CAPITAL GROUP, INC et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case:

Oo Oo SO BN OO Se OB Ye

NM MF BF BD BD KD BRD ORD OD mm mm mmm et
oO ~~ DB A FP WwW NH YF COS WO CS IT HR A Bh Ww Ww KK OS

)6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE:
FREDDY VICTOR GARRIDO JIMENEZ : Case No. 05-02111(ESL)

Chapter 7
Debtor

WILFREDO SEGARRA MIRANDA, as
Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of
Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez
ADVERSARY NO. 06-0236
Plaintiff

V.
RD CAPITAL GROUP, INC.;
RAMON DOMINGUEZ;

JORGE BLUM; ABC INSURANCE.;
DEF INSURANCE CORP.

Defendants

OPINION, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO:

This adversary proceeding is before the court for the limited purpose of determining
whether the arbitration agreements signed by Mr. Virgilio Garrido (also referred to as “Virgilio”)
and Ms. Catherine Rios (also referred to as “Catherine”), relative to accounts opened with RD
Capital Group, Inc. (“RD Capital”) are valid and enforceable as to Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido
Jiménez, (the “Debtor” or “Freddy Victor’). Plaintiff, the Chapter 7 trustee for the estate of the
Debtor, alleges that the arbitration agreement signed by Mr. Virgilio Garrido and Ms.Catherine

Rios (Accounts 6RD-008525 and 6RD-008905) cannot be enforced against the Debtor, Freddy

Victor Garrido Jiménez, because he did not sign the same. Plaintiff also alleges that the

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION

GPO

Case:(

So SON RN

mM NM BN BD RD RD RD ORDO OO et
oo ~~] ON Un fe uw bo — ao wo oo ~~] aN A & La ie) —_ Lame)

6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 15

agreements are null and void pursuant to applicable state law, that is, because the consent was
obtained through deceit, there was no consideration, and the agreement was contrary to law and
good morals as it was intended to conceal assets from Debtor’s creditors. After considering the
evidence presented at the hearings and the parties’ legal memoranda, the court finds that the
arbitration agreements are unenforceable as to the Debtor, Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez,
and do not bind the Chapter 7 trustee, as the representative of the Debtor’s estate. However, since
the issue is a non core related matter, the bankruptcy court does not have authority to enter a final
order. Consequently, the instant OPINION is a report and recommendation to the U.S. District
Court.

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

Before the court is an adversary proceeding commenced by the Chapter 7 trustee against
RD Capital, Ram6én Dominguez (Dominguez) and Jorge Blum (Blum) to recover damages
suffered as a result of the defendants’ acts in conspiring with the Debtor to hinder, delay and
defraud his creditors', as well as to recover for the decline in value of the accounts, ill-gotten
gains in commissions, interest and other benefits as a result of overtrading and sale of securities
on margin. Plaintiff pleads as statutory predicates to the complaint breach of fiduciary duties
under the laws of Puerto Rico; 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 3018, 5141; and violations to the Securities and

Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78a, et seq. and the Securities and Exchange Commission

‘In February 2006 the Debtor, Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez plead guilty to count one
of the indictment in CRIM. NO. 06-322 (DRD). The count states that “[fJrom on or about March
9, 2005, to on or about March 16, 2006, in the District of Puerto Rico and elsewhere and within the
jurisdiction of this.Court, Freddy Victor Garrido-Jiménez, the defendant herein, knowingly and
fraudulently concealed property of the estate of the defendant from the bankruptcy trustee, creditors,
and the United States Trustee in connection with a case under Title 11, namely, In re Freddy Victor
Garrido Jiménez, No. 05-02111, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Puerto Rico.
Specifically, the defendant knowingly and fraudulently concealed at least the following properties:
... (d) an amount of at least $204,852.90.”

-2-

Case:(

wn & Ww Nh

Oo CO “SN

10
1}
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 15

Rule 10b-5; and unjust enrichment.

RD Capital is a brokerage firm organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Dominguez and Blum are principals, and President and Vice
President respectively, of RD Capital.

FACTS

The parties have stipulated to the following uncontested facts: RD Capital is a brokerage
house authorized to and conducting business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Ramén
Dominguez is the President of RD Capital; Jorge Blum is the Chief Compliance Officer of RD
Capital; these defendants never met personally with Virgilio Garrido; these defendants never met
personally with Catherine Rios; these defendants never spoke to Catherine Rios; Virgilio Garrido
never had any personal contact with any person from RD Capital; Catherine Rios never had any
personal contact with any person from RD Capital; and, Debtor, Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez,
met with Ram6n Dominguez and Jorge Blum and with nobody else from RD Capital concerning
accounts 6RD-008525 and 6RD-008905.

The testimonial and documentary evidence presented at the hearing will be considered for
the limited purpose of determining whether there is a valid arbitration agreement.

Mr. Dominguez testified that he met Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez in 1978 when he
used his services as a locksmith. Although Mr. Dominguez has known Mr. Freddy Victor
Garrido Jiménez for a long time, he does not consider him his friend. On one occasion Mr.
Dominguez gave Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez the amount of $10,000 to play “Lotto”
because he thought that Freddy Victor had a “system” since he had won the Lotto before. Mr.
Dominguez gave Freddy Victor the money to play Lotto after an account had been opened with

RD Capital in Mr. Virgilio Garrido’s name. Mr. Dominguez lost the $10,000.

Case:(

Oo SO SNS HD OF FSF WH NH

Bo NO Ne Bw bw NY VY KH NO = =| FEF Ee Se eS OOO SOOO Sel ele
o> os i >) © 2 i” — © > i OO SO oe > © 2) 2 i:

6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 15

In 2004 Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez called Mr. Dominguez to invest funds that
his brother had won in the lottery. Mr. Dominguez thought the money belonged to Mr. Virgilio
Garrido because the Lottery checks were made out in Virgilio’s name. Mr. Dominguez never saw
or contacted Mr. Virgilio Garrido. He relied on the representations made by Mr. Freddy Victor
Garrido Jiménez. The account was opened in January 2004.

The applicable regulations’ at the time, and in place since October 2003, required
customer identification. The details regarding the opening of an account were handled by RD
Capital’s Operations Department.

Mr. Dominguez recognized his handwriting in the form used to open the account. (Trial
Exhibit A). He included $50,000 - $100,000 in the income space, and $500,000 - $1,000,000 in
the individual net worth, based on the amounts being deposited. All the information included in
the form was based on Mr. Dominguez’ assumptions.

Mr. Dominguez does not remember requiring any information regarding Mr. Virgilio
Garrido’s education. Mr.Dominguez knows Mr, Virgilio Garrido only through the documents
submitted to open the account. Mr. Virgilio Garrido was marked in the form as an inexperienced
investor. The form and documents to open the account in the name of Virgilio Garrido were
given by Mr. Dominguez to Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez, who later brought them back for
processing. RD Capital’s Compliance Manual, Trial Exhibit 8, at page 65, specifically states in
reference to opening an option account that “[p]rior to such approval, the CROP/SROP will
determine that the client is sufficiently aware of the risks involved in naked writing and can bear

the financial exposure.” Clearly, the requirement was not met.

*Customer Identification Programs For Broker-Dealers, 31 CFR Part 103, Trial Exhibit 9,
and SEC Rule 17a-3(a)(17), implementing Section 326 of the Patriot Act.These two important
regulatory rules require that customer information be obtained, albeit for different purposes.

-4-

Case:)6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main

Oo OO SNS BA A Se |] Ne

NN 8B bP Bw BR NR RD RD ORD mmm teem
Co ~~) BA OT F&F Ww HB KF CS BO 6 SD DR A ee WD NH FF BS

Document Page 5 of 15

Mr. Virgilio L. Garrido Jiménez testified that, and the court gives full credence to his
testimony, he is 44 years old, the highest grade he finished was first grade, and later he went to
night school to learn to read. He can read but cannot write in Spanish. He cannot read nor write
in the English language. He started working since he was 12 years old. For the past 19 years he
has been working as an employee of Onesource, formerly Antilles Cleaners, providing
maintenance services to office buildings, currently earning $5.85 per hour. He does not drive as
he cannot afford a cat, and has never owned a house.

Virgilio is Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez’ brother. Freddy Victor won the lottery
and asked Virgilio to cash the tickets for him because he was having problems with his ex-wife.
Freddy Victor assured his brother that it would not cause him any harm. They went together to
the lottery to cash the tickets. Freddy Victor did not give his brother anything in return.

Freddy Victor Garrido gave his brother Virgilio the documents to open a bank account.
He signed the papers, but the telephone number and the address are those of Freddy Victor.
Virgilio does not understand anything on the form used to open the account, he just signed the
papers.

After the bank account was opened, Virgilio learned that his health benefits were being
cancelled due to the account he opened at Freddy Victor’s request. Virgilio asked Freddy Victor
to take out the money placed in his name so he could have the health card back. Freddy Victor
gave him some papers to this effect but he could not read them.

Virgilio testified that all actions regarding the cashing of the lottery tickets and the
opening the bank accounts were done to help his brother. He never received any money. He
does not know nor has ever spoken to Mr. Ramén Dominguez or Mr. Jorge Blum.

Ms. Catherine Rios testified that she was married to Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Pagan,

Case:46-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main

Oo SO sS DB A me BW Ne

Bm BN WH BR BRD ORD ORD OR Om meet
oOo SJ DH A BP HY NO - Oo CO CO SI BH HH BP WwW NH KF

Document Page 6 of 15

the son of Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez. They divorced by mutual consent in June 2007.
She first saw the application and forms to open an account with RD Capital (Trial Exhibits E, F,
and G) at her home when her former father in law brought them for her signature. Mr. Freddy
Victor Garrido Jiménez asked her to do him a favor; he had money in his brother’s name but had
to place it in someone else’s name for a short time. After her former husband insisted, she
accepted to sign the documents as a favor. Her former husband, Debtor’s son, did not sign the
documents because he had filed a bankruptcy petition.

The documents signed by Ms. Catherine Rios were in blank as they would be filled in by
someone at the RD Capital. She gave Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez a copy of her driver’s
license. The account’s postal address as indicated in the document corresponds to that of Mr.
Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez. She was never explained the terms and conditions of opening an
account. She never received any funds or consideration in exchange for the favor. She had also
previously signed deeds regarding properties belonging to her former father in law.

Ms. Rios does not know Mr. Dominguez or Mr. Blum and has never talked to them.

Mr. Jorge Blum, testified that he is the compliance officer for RD Capital and oversees
compliance with industry rules and regulations. He keeps the brokers informed of changes to the
National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Rules and Regulations. Amongst the
applicable regulations is 31 C.F.R. Part 103, Customer Identification Program (CIP), effective
October 2003.

The accounts related to this proceeding were opened after October 2003, so they are
subject to the Customer Identification Program. Mr. Blum admits to not having informed the
brokers of the change in October 2003. The Customer Identification Program is part of the Anti

Laundering Program. The compliance officer, that is, Mr. Jorge Blum, is the one responsible for

Case:(

BP Wo kb

Oo SF ND Ww

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 15

the program. The applicable regulations require that the true identity of the customer be known.
The regulations requiring customer identification were not followed.

Mr. Blum admitted that the brokers violated the Customer Identification Program because
he failed to advise them of the change. However, pursuant to NASD Rule 3011, Mr.
Dominguez, as President of RD Capital, is ultimately responsible for the implementation of the
Anti Laundering Program. Pursuant to RD Capital’s Compliance Manual, Mr. Dominguez is also
in charge of continuing education.

When shown the form to open account number 6RD-008525 for Mr. Virgilio Garrido, the
space for the [.D. verification is in blank. However, Mr. Blum reviewed the form and assigned an
account number. Mr. Blum did not make an independent verification of the declared income. He
admits that he never met or spoke with Mr. Virgilio Garrido. He was not involved in the
investment part, and in fact, saw Mr. Virgilio Garrido for the first time in court while testifying.

Mr. Blum admits having prepared the letters presented at trial authorizing withdrawal of
funds from the account (Trial Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), following the directions of Mr. Freddy
Victor Garrido Jiménez, who represented that the requests were those of his brother. This was
done even when the account was in the name of Mr. Virgilio Garrido Jiménez, an account over
which nobody else had authority to act. The letters were prepared because Mr. Freddy Victor
Garrido Jiménez would come to the office saying his brother needed money right away. Mr.
Blum never verified the signature in the letters he prepared since, in his opinion, this is “a
business of trust.” In fact, a cursory verification of the signature in page 5 of Trial Exhibit A,
the form to open the account with RD Capital, and the signatures in the letters, shows that the

signatures are different from that of Mr. Virgilio Garrido Jiménez. When shown Trial Exhibit 1,

it clearly appears that the signature in the bankruptcy petition filed by Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido

Case:46-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main

0 CO ~F A te BP YW NO me

[EO DE SO SS (0D OD
co SY KH wT BP we NOY CO OO lmwmUlUlUlh YUN UU UU ULE US

Document Page 8 of 15

Jiménez is similar to the ones in the letters. Mr. Blum either knew, or should have known, that
the funds in Mr. Virgilio Garrido’s account really belonged to his brother, Mr. Freddy Victor
Garrido Jiménez.

When shown the form to open the account for Ms. Catherine Rios, Mr. Blum stated that
he filled the form as per the instructions of Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez, who informed
him that his brother Virgilio wanted to change the account to one under a friend’s name. Mr.
Blum never verified the signature, he followed Mr. Freddy Victor Garrido Jiménez’ instructions,
specifically, to transfer the same information in Virgilio’s account to Catherine’s. There was no
verification of the truthfulness of the instructions. Mr. Blum never asked why the funds were
being transferred as he accepted as true that the same were for a friend. The information |
transferred included the address. This failure is in clear violation of NASD Rule 3110).

Mr. Blum acknowledged that the NASD Rules require that the Arbitration Agreement be
sent to the address of the customer. However, he did not question the fact that the same address
was included for the two accounts as, in his opinion, friends can have the same address.

Mr. Blum brazenly admitted having violated his responsibilities of insuring
compliance with the NASD Rules and Regulations by not properly verifying the
identification for Mr. Virgilio Garrido and Ms. Catherine Rios, by not verifying their
signatures, not meeting or talking to the customers Mr. Virgilio Garrido nor Ms, Catherine
Rios.

The evidence before the court clearly shows that the Debtor engaged in a series of
“straw man” transactions in order to conceal, secrete and deplete his significant cash and
other assets held in other persons’ names, and hide those assets from his creditors. Debtor

engaged in this conduct well before filing for bankruptcy, and his scheme was unraveled after

Case:(

Oo CO “S BH OF BR HBR ee

NM wm Bo Bw BO ORD ORD OND OR mmm
fone ee ©) ©) a ©. a Oe oh > |

6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 9 of 15

the filing of his petition.

Relevant to this case was a prize for over $438,250 dollars that Debtor won in late
2004. In order to conceal the money, the prize was collected by Virgilio. In order to hide the
prize, Debtor sought the brokerage services and advise of RD Capital. In January 2004,
Debtor and RD Capital opened a brokerage account under Virgilio Garrido Jiménez’ name,
all the time knowing that the money belonged to Debtor (the “Account”). A New Account
Form (“NAF”) was signed by Virgilio when the account was opened. The NAF contains an
arbitration agreement. The account was comprised of or included several ancillary
agreements, such as a Margin Agreement (“MA”) and an Option Agreement (“OA”), both of
which also contained arbitration agreements. The NAF, MA and OA (collectively the
“Account Agreements”) each contained a clearly legible disclaimer in their respective
signature lines, highlighting the existence of the arbitration agreement in each document.
Debtor personally procured the account agreement forms, had them filled and signed by
Virgilio, and returned them to RD Capital.

In December 2004, Virgilio complained that having the account in his name
jeopardized his government health care benefits. As a result, Debtor closed the account and
transferred the funds to another account opened with RD Capital in Catherine’s name. Just
like with Virgilio; all parties knew and understood that the funds in the new account also
belonged to Debtor. On this new account, Catherine also signed the documents containing the
NAF, MA and OA. Debtor and Catherine signed a Full Trading Authorization Agreement
(“FTAA”) making Debtor an agent and attorney in fact for Catherine under the account with
unrestricted powers and privileges to transact with Catherine’s nominal account. The terms of

the FTAA refer back to the “terms and conditions” of the Account Agreements. As was the

Case:(

to

oc SS SS DB OH FS WwW

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 lEntered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 10 of 15

case with Virgilio, Debtor took all the necessary steps to open the new account under

Catherine’s name. Catherine never saw nor met with anyone at RD Capital.

CORE OR NON CORE

This court has jurisdiction over these proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a),
which provides that the district court may refer all cases under title 11, and all proceedings
arising under title 11, or arising in or related to a case under title 11, to the bankruptcy court
of that district. That section further provides in subsection (b) that the bankruptcy court “may
hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or
arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a).” Core proceedings are defined
in § 157(b)(2), and subsection (3) provides that the bankruptcy judge shall determine whether
a proceeding is a core proceeding or is otherwise related to a case under title 11.

A determination of whether a controversy is core or non-core depends upon its
relation to the basic functions of the bankruptcy court and not on the federal or state basis for

the claim. In re Arnold Print Works, Inc., 815 F.2d 165, 169 (1st Cir. 1987). Ifthe

proceeding, by its nature, arises only within the bankruptcy context because it involves a right
created by federal bankruptcy law, then it is a core proceeding. In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 97
(5th Cir. 1987). If an action would survive outside of bankruptcy, and in the absence of

bankruptcy would have been initiated in a state or a district court, then it clearly involves a

non-core matter. 1 Lawrence P. King et al., Collier on Bankruptcy P3.01/1][c]fiv] at 3-27
(15th ed. 1991), citing In re Colorado Energy Supply, Inc., 728 F.2d 1283 (10th Cir, 1984).
The non-core related actions referred to by 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) are those that

"potentially have some effect on the bankruptcy estate, such as altering debtor's nghts,

-10-

Case:()6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 -Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main

Oo 8 ~J Bw FR SB Ww PP

mM Bw Be RD ORD OD OD ORD Rm
oOo SN WN ow fF WO NO * OD CO CO ss KH A FF Ww BY KF SS

Document Page 11 of 15

liabilities, options, or freedom of action, or otherwise have an impact upon the handling and
administration of the bankruptcy estate.” In re G.S.F. Corporation, 938 F.2d 1467, 1475 (ist

Cir. 1991), abrogated in part on other grounds, Connecticut Nat’] Bank v. Germain, 503

U.S. 249, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992), citing In re Smith, 866 F.2d 576, 580 (rd
Cir, 1989). Ifthe determination of the case could have an effect on the bankruptcy estate, it
is arelated matter. Id. The intent is to enable bankruptcy courts “to deal efficiently and .
effectively with the entire universe of matters connected with bankruptcy estates.” In re
Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc., 410 F.3d 100, 105 (1* Cir. 2005).

Non-core related proceedings are those which are related to cases under title 11. As
to this type of proceeding, a bankruptcy judge "shall submit proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by
the district judge veel 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The district court conducts a de novo review.
In re Sheridan, 362 F.3d 96, 100 (1* Cir. 2004). However, a bankruptcy judge may enter
final orders and judgments concerning non-core but related matters if all parties to the
proceeding have consented. § 157(c)(2); G.S.F., 938 F.2d at 1476.

Subsection (c}(1) provides that a bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a
core proceeding, but is otherwise related to a case under title 11; however, the bankruptcy
judge should submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for
de novo review. Subsection (c)(2) provides that if all the parties to the proceeding consent,
the bankruptcy judge may hear and determine the matter and enter appropriate orders and
judgments.

A bankruptcy judge may enter interlocutory orders in a matter being tried under §

157(c). 1 Lawrence P. King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy § 3.03[2] (15" ed. Rev.), citing

-li-

Case:(

a

oOo CO ms BH tr

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 12 of 15

Elkins v. X-Alpha Int’1, Ltd. (in re Kennedy), 48 B.R. 621 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1985); Lesser v.

A-Z, Assocs., Inc. (In re Lion Capital Group), 46 B.R. 850 (Bankr. 8.D.N.Y. 1985). An

interlocutory order is one that does not finally determine a cause of action, but only decides
some intervening matter pertaining to the cause, and requires further steps to be taken to
enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits. Collier 4 5.07{1][a].

Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §1334 and that the proceeding is
a core matter under 28 U.S.C.A.§157(b)(2)(J), that is, “objection to discharges.” Clearly, not
one of the causes of action is an objection to Debtor’s discharge*®. The causes of action herein
are aimed at recovering property of the estate for the alleged fraudulent conduct of the
defendants. Liberally construed, the actions may arguably come under 11 U.S.C.A. §
157(b)(2)(A, E, or H), which include matters concerning the administration of the estate,
orders for the turnover of property of the estate, and proceedings to recover fraudulent
conveyances. However, the statutory predicates are the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff does not raise causes of
action under 11 US.C.A. § 542, turnover of property of the estate, or 11 U.S.C.A. § 548,
fraudulent transfers and obligations.*

The defendants allege that the proceeding before the court is not a core matter.

Plaintiff replies stating that by failing to present the issue they have waived it. The court

*The court notes that the judgment entered on June 13, 2006, in AP 06-0037 denied the
Debtor’s discharge.

“These are actions that do not derive from the Debtor, and, arguably, the trustee may not be
compelled to arbitration. Hays and Co. V. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 885 F.2d 1149,
1153-1155 (3d Cir. 1989); In re EXDS Inc., 316 B.R. 817 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004); In re Hagerstown
Fiber Lid Partnership, 277 B.R. 181 (Bankr. $.D.N.Y. 2002).

-12-

Case:

aI BN A F&F WH WL

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DN6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 13 of 15

disagrees. The procedural juncture of this case is that defendants’ motion fo dismiss was
denied, and the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for the limited purpose of determining
whether there is a valid arbitration agreement. Defendants have not answered the complaint
nor expressly consented to this court entering a final order. In fact, their position is that the
matter be submitted to arbitration.

Plaintiff's causes of action could have been initiated before the state or federal courts,
but will have an impact on the estate, thus, they are non core related matters. Since the
defendants have not consented to this court entering a final order, it may only submit
proposed findings and conclusions to the U.S. District Court.

FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT AND COURT’S JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 ULS.C.A. §§ 1-16,Section 2, was enacted to
overcome judicial resistance to arbitration. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. V. Cardegna, 546
U.S. 440 (2006). The Supreme Court in Buckeye held that arbitration clauses are severable
from the remainder of the contract, the validity of the entire contract must be considered by
the arbitrator in the first instance, and a challenge to the arbitration clause may be decided by
acourt. Thus, the courts must decide whether there is a valid consent to the arbitration
agreement before compelling arbitration. The validity of an arbitration clause or agreement

hinges on state contract law. First Options of Chicago, Inc, v. Kaplan, 514 US. 938, 944

(1995); Campbell v. Gen. Dynamics Gov’t Sys. Corp., 407 F.3d 546, 552 (1" Cir. 2005);

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Society,
479 F.3d 561, 565 (8" Cir. 2007).
If the issues before this court were core proceedings, this court would follow the well

reasoned analysis in Brown v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al, 354 B.R.

~13-

Case

bk WwW Ww

“1 NO

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

N6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 14 of 15

591, 603 (D. R. 1 2006), which concluded “that where a conflict exists between the
Bankruptcy Code and the FAA, a bankruptcy court retains discretion to decide whether and
when to compel arbitration if the at-issue proceeding is core.” However, the issues before the
court are non core related matters, and this court’s discretion is limited.

DISCUSSION

The parties have agreed in the pretrial report that the ultimate issues to be decided by
the court at this juncture are: whether the Debtor, and thus the trustee, agreed to arbitrate any
dispute with the Defendants; whether the Debtor, and thus the trustee, is bound by any
agreement to arbitrate executed by Virgilio Garrido and Catherine Rios; whether the
agreements to arbitrate executed by Virgilio Garrido and Catherine Rios are valid and
enforceable pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and, whether the
court should exercise its discretion and deny arbitration.

Pursuant to the laws of Puerto Rico, -a “contract exists from the moment one or more
persons consent to bind himself or themselves...” 31 L.P.R.A. §3371. The contract “shall
only be valid between the parties who execute them and their heirs, .. .°31 L.P.R.A. § 3374.
The Debtor was not a party to the arbitration agreement because he did not sign the same.
Consequently, the Debtor is not bound by the arbitration agreements signed by Mr. Virgtho
Garrido and Ms. Catherine Rios.

The court agrees with the plaintiff that there is no valid agency contract under the
facts of this case. Virgilio Garrido and Catherine Rios were not binding themselves to render
services or do something for the account or at the request of Freddy Victor Garrido. 31
L.P.R.A. § 4421. Virgilio Garrido and Catherine Rios were “straw man” to Freddy Victor

Garrido to conceal assets from Debtor’s creditors. This fact in undeniable as Freddy Victor

-14-

CaseiD6-00236-ESL Doc#:46 Filed:05/28/08 Entered:05/28/08 13:40:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 15 of 15

1 | Garrido plead guilty to an indictment so charging.

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, this court concludes that the arbitration agreement is not

ee WwW bk

valid against the trustee, as representative of the Debtor’s estate, because the Debtor, owner

of the funds used to open the accounts at RD Capital, did not sign the same. The court

i |

recommends to the U.S. District Court that this conclusion be adopted.
8
SO RECOMMENDED. te

San Juan, Puerto Rico, thisSday of May, 2008.
10

11

12

QUE S. LAMOUTTE
13 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-15-