Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Erika Jayne has had a pretty crap few years. Her estranged husband Tom Girardi went from high-powered attorney to shamed guy in a senior care facility.
Along the way, Erika received tons of flack from her co-stars and anyone who has watched RHOBH in the last three years. As Tom prepares to go to war in court, EJ is launching a battle of her own. Radar has the details.
The plot twist …
Erika shocked folks when she presented claims of fraud in the Girardi Keese bankruptcy case. As you know, Tom lost it all when evidence of his dastardly deeds began coming out of the woodwork. The law firm filed for Chapter 7 due to creditors on their tail.
Big Daddy Tom has been accused of treating his company like a pyramid scheme and in 2023 he was clocked for wire fraud charges. Tom stands liable for embezzling $18 million from clients who trusted him between 2010 and 2020.
In the midst of the mess, Erika was sued for a whopping $25 million by the bankruptcy’s trustee. Additionally, the suit wanted the money Tom’s firm spent on Erika’s company, EJ Global. She has denied any wrongdoing from the beginning.
Now Erika is switching up the game. She has requested the judge not approve certain payments the bankruptcy trustee wants to make to the people Tom owes. Her attorney basically slapped the trustee with words. He wrote, “With minor exceptions, the only thing the Trustee has done quickly in this case is to give up on claims against and rush to make reckless agreements with, purported secured creditors.”
It continued, “The result of the Trustee’s actions (and inaction), including the instant Motion, will be to give the lion’s share of assets of the [Girardi Keese] estate to either wrongdoers or parties that will receive a windfall – all to the detriment of unsecured creditors, which include victims of [Girardi Keese]. More than anyone, the victims of [Girardi Keese] will be hurt and prejudiced if the Motion is granted.”
Okay, but what does it mean?
Basically, this means if the payments are approved it will “begin a process of giving away multiple millions of dollars from the GK estate to alleged secured creditors.” Erika said two of the alleged creditors don’t deserve any payback. Apparently, they are “wrongdoers not entitled to any payment.”
Also, Erika’s team recently discovered “new” evidence and an investigation has been launched. The legal docs read, “Disturbingly, this evidence is known or should be known by the Trustee.”
Further, the attorneys believe fraud was committed within the court in connection to the filing of the bankruptcy cases. “This evidence of fraud on the Court will be presented in upcoming filings. As soon as Ms. Girardi’s counsel have an opportunity to complete their investigation and discuss the evidence with the Department of Justice.”
EJ’s motion continued, “The [Girardi Keese] case is of historic importance and goes to the core of the integrity of the legal profession. We request that the Court not approve or enable the Trustee’s rush to pay out the bulk of this estate to alleged secured creditors that, in whole or in part, when all the evidence is put forward, are not entitled to payment.”
And remember burn victim Joseph Ruigomez? Erika has “great sympathy” for him but said he’s already been paid over $11 million from Girardi Keese. But can we really put a price on being blown up? EJ said, “The Ruigomez creditors, while wholly deserving, already have received tens of millions of dollars in cash and other value from GK.”
No threats from the other side, please and thank you
And don’t try any funny business either because your threats won’t make them flinch. “The Trustee should not be intimidated by threats of continuing interest on the claims of the Ruigomez creditors, if further investigation would show that additional payments to them would amount to a windfall exceeding their actual loss. Many other legitimate creditor victims have not received a penny.”
The judge has not ruled at the time of publishing.
TELL US – WHAT DO YOU THINK OF ERIKA’S PLOT TWIST? WAS THIS A GOOD MOVE ON HER BEHALF?
