FIRM HIGHLIGHTS

We represent businesses and individuals in a variety of litigation matters. On each case we handle, our goal is to achieve our client’s objectives in an efficient and cost effective manner. Among our recent successes are the following:

• We obtained a $250,000 arbitration award at summary judgment on behalf of a local engineering firm on a breach of contract claim involving the design and construction of a municipal housing and retail project in Vermont. Our client’s recovery included the full amount owed under the contract, plus interest, and all attorney’s fees incurred by our client in pursuing its claims. The case involved the interpretation of a “pay when paid” provision of a standard form AIA contract.
  
  
• We successfully represented a homeowner in a products liability case involving the replacement of fifty four wood windows in our client’s home that had rotted prematurely. The defendant window manufacturer resisted providing discovery and sought to have the case stayed on the basis that its insurer was in receivership. The United States District Court granted our client’s motion to compel discovery and denied the defendant’s motion to stay and motion for reconsideration. The Court ordered the defendant to produce all the requested discovery, including information the defendant contended was subject to attorney client privilege. The case settled shortly after the court issued its orders.
  
  
• We represented a transportation company before the National Labor Relations Board in connection with a union organizing campaign involving drivers at one of the company’s yards. The union sought to limit the number of employees eligible to vote in the election to a group of drivers recently hired by our client that had previously been organized while working for another employer. We successfully argued to the NLRB that the bargaining unit for the election should include all drivers working out of the same yard. We counseled the employer throughout the union campaign and the company prevailed in the union election.
  
  
• We obtained a reversal of a judgment against a Chicago based scrap metal company sued by a Massachusetts based manufacturer in connection with the alleged breach of a bailment contract. We successfully argued that the trial court erred in denying our client’s motion to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction where all the activities concerning the contract took place in the Chicago area and our client had no contacts with Massachusetts that supported the court exercising jurisdiction over the case. The appellate court’s decision in favor of our client can be found at Cambridge Lee Industries, Inc. v. Acme Refining Company, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 140.
  
  
• We represented an environmental engineering firm in a dispute concerning the firm’s insurance coverage for litigation involving the failed development of a golf course. The firm’s insurer provided a defense in the litigation for over two years before informing the firm shortly before trial that the insurer would not defend and indemnify the firm in connection with certain of the claims asserted against it. We successfully argued that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage after initially undertaking the defense of all claims and that the insurer’s conduct constituted an unfair business practice. Through negotiation, we obtained an agreement from the insurer to defend and indemnify our client against all claims asserted in the litigation and to reimburse all the attorney’s fees our client incurred in connection with the coverage dispute.
  
  
• We successfully defended a director of a multinational software company against claims by his former employer alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a non-competition agreement. Initially, we succeeded in limiting discovery by obtaining an order conditioning the taking of our client’s deposition only upon the plaintiff producing an affidavit in which the plaintiff identified with particularity what the plaintiff claimed to constitute trade secrets allegedly misappropriated by our client. Later, we challenged the sufficiency of the affidavit produced in connection with a motion to quash a subpoena served by the plaintiff on our client’s current employer in which the plaintiff sought certain trade secret information of the employer that the plaintiff maintained was necessary for it to prove its case. The court issued an order quashing the subpoena served on the employer thereby denying the plaintiff access to information it sought. Shortly after this order the parties executed and filed a stipulation dismissing the matter with prejudice.
  
  
• We successfully defended an automobile dealership and its majority shareholder, against claims brought by a minority shareholder alleging a wrongful freeze-out as a result of a merger of the corporation with another entity. On behalf of our clients we moved for summary judgment on the basis that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. The Superior Court granted the motion on all counts, holding that the statute of limitations had begun to run as of the date when the plaintiff received notice of and detailed information about the merger. Accordingly, the Court determined that, as of that date, the plaintiff was adequately informed and knew, or should have known, that his interest in the corporation would be extinguished as a result of the merger, thereby commencing the running of the limitations period. The Superior Court’s order can be found here. On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order, dismissing as not supportable, the plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the statute of limitations by claiming that the defendants fraudulently concealed that the purpose of the merger was a freeze- out and that, as a result, the plaintiff did not have actual notice of his potential claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The Appeals Court’s decision in favor of our client can be found at Saro v. Carney, 60 Mass. App. Ct 1112, 802 N.E.2d 129, 2004 WL 98537 (2004).
  
  
• We successfully defended a former employee, officer and shareholder of an international air freight shipping company against claims by the shipping company of breach of duty of loyalty and breach of fiduciary duty. The action arose as result of our client resigning as an employee and officer, turning in his shares, and going to work for a competitor. At the commencement of the action, the shipping company sought the entry of a preliminary injunction, enjoining our client from working for the competitor. In response, the United States District Court scheduled the entire action for trial on an expedited basis. The matter was tried before a jury six days later. During the course of the trial, we introduced evidence through tax returns and other documents, that the shipping company had breached its fiduciary duty to our client by failing to pay dividends properly due him, that he was a shareholder and officer in name only, and that he otherwise was not precluded from competing with the shipping company after he resigned. The matter was settled after four days of trial.
  
  
• We successfully prosecuted, on behalf of the leaser of a luxury sports car, in an action tried to a jury (Suffolk Superior Court), claims against an automobile dealership based on fraud. The automobile had been in an accident, repaired and then put on the dealer’s showroom floor and represented by the dealer as a brand new automobile. We successfully proved at trial that as a result of the misrepresentations of the dealer, our client arranged to have the automobile purchased by a third party and entered into a lease with that third party. Had he known the true history and condition of the automobile, our client would not have entered into the lease. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client on the fraud claim and awarded damages.
  
  
• We successfully represented a custom design and fabrication company in connection with claims asserted by it against a museum customer for breach of a settlement agreement, wrongful declaration of the fabricator’s default on a performance bond executed as part of the settlement agreement, and the museum’s unlawful collection of the proceeds of the performance bond. The museum asserted counterclaims in which it alleged that our client had breached the terms of the settlement agreement by failing to timely remedy and install certain interactive exhibits that the museum alleged were defective, and that our client failed to return certain museum owned artifacts to be used in the interactive exhibits. The matter was litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and was resolved shortly after we successfully moved for the entry of an order disqualifying the museum’s counsel based on his prior involvement in the negotiation and performance of the subject settlement agreement.