The Supreme Court of Guam has issued a ruling in *Hemlani v. Melwani*, a complex family trust and business dispute that has wound its way through the territorial court system for more than a decade. The case, designated as Supreme Court Case No. CVA24-013, represents an appeal from Superior Court Case No. CV1527-13, which was originally filed in 2013.
Kamlesh K. Hemlani brought the action both individually and derivatively on behalf of the Radhi Puran Trust against a substantial list of defendants including family members, business entities, and related trusts and foundations. The defendants include Manu and Anita Melwani, Jethmal K. Melwani, Ishwar P. Hemlani, Vinod I. and Yogita V. Hemlani, along with several estates, foundations, and business entities.
The case involves multiple business entities that appear to be part of a family business empire, including Pacific Rainbow, Inc., Safety 1st Systems Inc., and Pacific American Title Insurance & Escrow Company. The litigation also encompasses several trusts and foundations including the Radhi P. Hemlani Estate, Paramanand Melwani Estate, Radhi's Foundation, Radhi Family Trust, and P.D. Hemlani Foundation, Ltd.
The Supreme Court of Guam heard oral arguments and received submissions on May 16, 2025, in Hagåtña, Guam. The case was argued by Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr. of the Thomas McKee Tarpley Law Firm representing plaintiff-appellant Hemlani. Multiple law firms represented the various defendants, including Louie J. Yanza representing Radhi's Foundation (now known as Radhi Puran Foundation), Rodney J. Jacob of Calvo Jacob & Pangelinan LLP representing Vasudev Hemlani and P.D. Hemlani Foundation, Ltd., and Bill R. Mann representing Manu and Anita Melwani and related defendants.
The nature of derivative litigation means that Hemlani was pursuing claims not just for his own benefit, but on behalf of the Radhi Puran Trust itself. This type of legal action typically arises when someone with standing believes that those controlling a trust or business entity are not properly protecting its interests or are engaging in conduct that harms the entity.
The extensive list of defendants and the decade-long litigation timeline suggests this case involves substantial business interests and complex family relationships. The inclusion of multiple trusts and foundations indicates sophisticated estate planning and wealth management structures, while the various business entities suggest a diverse portfolio of commercial interests.
The case appears to involve what is commonly known as a family business dispute, where disagreements over control, management, or distribution of assets within a family enterprise lead to litigation. Such cases often involve allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, mismanagement, or improper diversion of assets.
The Supreme Court's decision, cited as *2025 Guam 12*, represents the culmination of years of litigation that began in the Superior Court of Guam. The fact that the case reached the territorial supreme court indicates that significant legal issues were at stake, whether involving questions of trust law, corporate governance, or family business disputes.
Guam's legal system follows U.S. federal court procedures and substantive law in many areas, making this case potentially relevant beyond the territory's borders for practitioners dealing with similar family business and trust disputes. The territorial supreme court's role in resolving such complex commercial litigation demonstrates the sophistication of Guam's judicial system in handling major business disputes.
The involvement of multiple law firms and the extended litigation timeline suggest substantial financial stakes in the outcome. Trust and estate litigation of this complexity typically involves significant assets and can have far-reaching implications for all parties involved.
The case also highlights the challenges that can arise in family businesses when multiple generations are involved and when business interests are structured through various trusts, foundations, and corporate entities. The complexity of the defendant list alone suggests intricate business relationships that may have developed over many years.
The resolution of this case by Guam's highest court provides finality to what appears to have been a contentious and long-running family business dispute. While the specific details of the court's ruling were not immediately available, the case represents a significant development in Guam's commercial litigation landscape and may provide important precedent for future trust and family business disputes in the territory.