    |
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 effective manner. Among our recent successes are the following:
- In an action litigated before the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court, we successfully defended an automobile dealership and its majority shareholder against claims brought by a minority shareholder alleging that his interest in the corporation had been extinguished as a result of an unlawful freeze-out merger, and that the dealership and majority shareholder had fraudulently concealed that the purpose of the merger was to freeze-out the minority shareholder. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the legal action had not been commenced within the time period required under the applicable statute of limitations. The Superior Court granted our motion on all counts, holding that the statute of limitations had begun to run as of the date the plaintiff received notice of the planned merger. As of that date, the plaintiff was adequately informed and knew that his interest in the corporation would be extinguished as a result of the merger, thereby commencing the running of the limitations period. We later prevailed before the Massachusetts Appeals Court which affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. The Appeals Court’s decision can be found at Saro v. Carney, 60 Mass. App. Ct1112, 802 N.E.2d 129, 2004 WL 98537 (2004).
- In a matter tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, we successfully defended a former officer and shareholder of an international air freight shipping company against claims by the shipping company alleging breach of duty of loyalty and breach of fiduciary duty. The action arose as result of our client resigning as an officer, turning in his shares to the company, and starting up a competing business. 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.
- In an action litigated before the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court, 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 the trade secrets allegedly misappropriated by our client. Later, we challenged the sufficiency of the affidavit produced by the plaintiff in connection with a motion to quash a subpoena served by the plaintiff on our client’s current employer. The plaintiff’s subpoena sought certain trade secret information of our client’s employer that the plaintiff maintained was necessary for it to prove its case against our client. The court issued an order quashing the subpoena, thereby denying the plaintiff access to information it sought. Shortly after this order, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the matter with prejudice.
- In a case litigated before the American Arbitration Association involving the interpretation of a “pay when paid” provision of a standard form AIA contract, we obtained a $250,000 arbitration award on behalf of a New England regional engineering firm against a Vermont-based architectural firm. Our client acted as a sub-contractor to the architectural firm which had contracted with a community development corporation to design a municipal housing and retail project. Our client’s recovery included the full amount owed under the contract, plus interest, and all attorneys’ fees incurred by our client in pursuing its claims.
- In an action litigated in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 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 refused to provide documents and other information requested by our office as part of discovery and sought to have the case stayed on the basis that its insurer was in receivership. The Court granted our motion to compel discovery and denied the defendant’s motion to stay and motion for reconsideration. In response to our request for sanctions based on the defendant’s discovery abuses, the Court ordered the defendant to produce all the requested discovery, including information the defendant contended was subject to the attorney-client privilege. The case settled shortly after the court issued its orders.
- 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 our client for the attorney’s fees it incurred in connection with the coverage dispute.
- 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 that 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 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.
|
