Category: Business Law & Commercial Litigation

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Lawsuit Alleges Defamatory Billboard

By ,

Defamation is when an individual makes a defamatory statement about another person that damages that person’s reputation. Libel and slander are both types of defamation, with libel involving a written statement, and slander involving a verbal statement. Defamation, libel, and slander are all relevant issues in business law.

A group of prominent judges, attorneys, and businessmen in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire recently filed a civil lawsuit against mortgage broker Michael Gill, who is running for Governor of New Hampshire, and demanded that he take down an allegedly defamatory billboard that explicitly refers to the professionals as drug dealers and extortionists.

The three men filed a lawsuit against Gill for libel and defamation. The lawsuit alleges that Gill made defamatory statements against the men on a large electronic sign outside Gill’s business, The Mortgage Specialists. The men allege that he has been posting these defamatory signs for years. The signs have drawn public criticism in the area for their use of vulgar language. Further, the men allege that Gill defamed them on the radio and over social media. Gill posts the details of his allegations of corruption on his website, and also purchases radio time for a regularly scheduled radio call-in program where he discusses corruption. The most recently noted sign refers to plaintiffs as “drug dealers” and accuses another of extortion.

Gill has often publicly accused a plaintiff of being arrested years ago for possession of cocaine, citing what he claims is the arrest number for the charge. The plaintiff has maintained that the number cited by Gill comes from 1987, and there is no record of any arrest or conviction. He said he is not sure what the purported arrest number signifies or corresponds to.

A superior court judge was scheduled to hear arguments requesting an injunction to remove the sign and order that Gill cease making defamatory statements while the suit is pending.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Seek Justice for Victims of Libel and Defamation

If someone has made harmful, defamatory statements against you or your business, contact the experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Viacom Lawsuit

By ,

A battle has ensued over the future of Viacom, a $40 billion media empire founded and controlled by Sumner M. Redstone in 1987. Mr. Redstone recently turned 93 years old. His daughter, Ms. Shari Redstone, who was long estranged from her father, has now reconciled with him. As a result, Directors from Viacom allege that they have been pushed aside, and are challenging his mental capacity in court. The directors claim that Ms. Redstone is orchestrating an unlawful corporate takeover, and that she is manipulating her father to change the terms of the trust that control his companies. In response, Mr. Redstone’s legal team has asked the court to confirm the changes that he has made to the trust.

The claim alleges that things came to a head when Mr. Redstone suddenly and unexpectedly removed directors from the trust who were set to gain control over all of his companies, including Viacom. The directors immediately sought to block the moves on grounds that Mr. Redstone suffers from profound physical and mental illness, and is subject to the undue influence of his daughter. They further claim that the new arrangement tips the balance of power to her, giving her great control over the companies should Mr. Redstone pass away or become incapacitated.

According to Mr. Redstone’s legal team, there is no evidence to support these allegations, and he has been clear and unequivocal that the plaintiffs should be removed as trustees. The judge agreed, but did not rule on Mr. Redstone’s competency.

The plaintiffs assert that Mr. Redstone has not appeared in public for nearly a year, and can no longer stand, walk, read, write or speak coherently. They also claim that he requires a feeding tube to eat and drink, and his saliva must be manually suctioned around the clock to prevent breathing complications.

The lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Redstone’s daughter made changes to her father’s last will and testament. Allegedly, after years of estrangement, she has inserted herself into his home, and isolated him from everyone, including his business colleagues. The directors allege that these actions could have far-reaching negative consequences for thousands of Viacom’s shareholders and employees.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Provide Skilled Representation in Business Litigation

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have extensive experiencing litigating commercial disputes. To learn more about how we can leverage our experience to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Class Action Lawsuit for Alleged Fraud

By ,

A recent lawsuit alleges that a Concord, California company, Disclosure Source, gave kickback payments to realty firm PMZ in exchange for PMZ secretly using Disclosure Source for natural-hazard reports in home sale transactions. PMZ, located in Modesto, California, is the leading property firm in Stanislaus County and one of the largest real estate companies in the United States. Disclosure Source generates reports detailing whether properties are at risk for damage from floods, forest fires and earthquakes. According to the lawsuit, PMZ concealed the kickbacks by routing clients to what appeared to be another firm, but in reality, was a PMZ shell company.

Three former PMZ clients used PMZ’s services to sell homes in 2009 and 2010. In theory, thousands of PMZ’s former clients (or more) could potentially join this lawsuit. But first, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barry Goode, who specializes in complex civil litigation, needs to deem the case worthy of class action status. PMZ is doubtful that this will happen, and believes that it will prevail in the long run, although Judge Goode has denied a preliminary motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was filed on grounds that the claim ran afoul of the four-year statute of limitations, as nearly five years had passed between the underlying incident and the filing of the suit.

In his tentative ruling, Judge Goode stated that when a fiduciary earns secret profits, this can constitute constructive fraud. If the allegations against PMZ are ultimately determined to be true, Judge Goode says there will be ample basis to conclude that the defendants committed fraud. The judge also noted that former clients say that they did not discover the alleged kickback scheme until recently, because the purported conspirators actively concealed their relationship.

However, the case is plagued with troubling standing issues. First, Judge Goode has already released five PMZ agents as defendants from the lawsuit. According to PMZ, none of the plaintiffs used Valley NHD (PMZ’s alleged Shell company) when selling homes.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Have Extensive Experience Litigating Issues of Fraud and Misrepresentation

If your business is facing allegations of fraud or misrepresentation the experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have the experience needed to achieve a successful outcome in your case. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Schedule a consultation today by calling us at 215-574-0600 or by filling out our online contact form.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Delaware Superior Court Rules on Litigation Financing Issue

By ,

“Litigation finance” is when a legal claim is used as collateral to obtain financing. In other words, a third party provides a cash advance to a litigant in exchange for a percentage of the judgment or settlement award. If the litigant loses, the third party lender receives nothing and loses their investment. In a recent case in Delaware, a party moved to dismiss a claim on grounds that it was funded by a litigation financer, and that the arrangement constituted unlawful champerty and maintenance. The Delaware Superior Court denied the motion, allowing the claim to move forward and confirming that the use of litigation finance is permissible in Delaware under certain circumstances.

Litigation funding initially began in Australia in 2000, and made its way to the United Kingdom in 2005. In 2006, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC formed a “litigation risk strategies unit,” bringing litigation finance to the United States. Subsequently, several other funders have begun lending money to litigants in the United States, and the numbers of lenders continue to grow.

Under Delaware law, champerty and maintenance are unlawful. “Champerty” is defined as an illegal agreement between a claimholder and a “volunteer” who funds the claim, that the volunteer can collect on the claim (or part of it), if it is successful. “Maintenance” is defined as intermeddling in a lawsuit whereby the intermeddler has no standing, yet they maintain the lawsuit, financially or otherwise. Champerty and maintenance are illegal in Delaware to prevent third parties from encouraging fraudulent or meritless lawsuits.

In this matter, Charge Injection Technologies, Inc. (CIT) sued DuPont in 2007, alleging that DuPont stole proprietary secrets. CIT then entered into a financing agreement with a British financing company, Burford Capital Ltd. to finance the litigation. DuPont moved to dismiss on grounds that the agreement violated Delaware’s prohibition against champerty and maintenance.

The Superior Court, however, found that the financing arrangement was not champertous because CIT remained the sole owner of the claim—Burford was not given the right to maintain any control over the claim. For example, CIT retained the right to settle at any time and for any amount. Further, the Court ruled that Burford was not coercing CIT to pursue a frivolous or unwanted lawsuit. The Court also was persuaded by the fact that the financing agreement allowed the proceeds to be used not only to fund the litigation, but also to cover business expenses. For all of these reasons, the Court found that the arrangement between CIT and Burford was lawful.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle Various Types of Commercial Litigation

If you need experienced counsel regarding commercial litigation, call one of the experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Mark Zuckerberg Settles Contract Lawsuit

By ,

A real estate developer filed a case against Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook Inc., alleging that Zuckerberg reneged on a promise to help the realtor develop his business in exchange for a discounted price on real estate that would have blocked the view from Zuckerberg’s home.

Initially, Zuckerberg was to buy the rights to purchase a property overlooking his Palo Alto, California home for $1.7 million from developer Mireca Voskerician. Voskerician had asserted that he and Zuckerberg agreed to this discounted price in exchange for a customer list comprised of Silicon Valley’s tech elite after the realtor threatened to build a mansion that would block much of Zuckerberg’s view.  These allegations formed the basis of Voskerician’s contract lawsuit against Zuckerberg for failing to live up to his end of the bargain.

However, it appears the developer’s case began to unravel after Zuckerberg’s lawyers’ allegedly discovered fraudulent bank statements produced by the developer. The developer has allegedly dropped the lawsuit in exchange for a promise that Zuckerberg will not sue him.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Routinely Handle All Types of Contract Matters

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we are known for our detail-oriented approach to contract law. If you have questions about a contract matter, contact one of our experienced Philadelphia commercial contract lawyers at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Settlement in Mislabeled Product Lawsuit

By ,

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals Inc., facing a class-action lawsuit brought by the federal government and 48 states claiming unlawful labeling, has settled the case for five million dollars.

Qualitest, a manufacturer of generic vitamins and a subsidiary of Endo Health Solutions, allegedly misrepresented the amount of fluoride in its multivitamin tablets. Although Qualitest labeled and advertised its product as containing the daily amount of fluoride recommended by the American Dental Association, the vitamins actually contained only half the recommended amount. Under the settlement agreement, Qualitest will pay $2.2 million to the federal government and $2.8 million to the state of New York to resolve claims pertaining to New York’s Medicaid program.

Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have successfully represented clients in whistleblower lawsuits, class actions and business tort litigation for more than 50 years. Contact us online or call our Philadelphia law firm at 215-574-0600.

Business Lawyers Philadelphia: Insurance Bad Faith Claims

By ,

Insurance Bad Faith Claims May Survive Even Where No Coverage is Due

In Citi Gas Convenience v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that a party can bring a bad faith claim even where a court may find no coverage is due if “bad faith is asserted as to conduct beyond a denial of coverage, the bad faith claim is actionable as to the conduct regardless of whether the contract claim survives.”

For example, an insurer may conduct bad faith in its investigation practices, even if ultimately the Court rules that a party is not entitled to coverage. However, the Plaintiff in Citi Gas Conveniencefailed to adequately plead such a claim, and it was dismissed without prejudice.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Conflict of Interest / Self-Dealing Transactions

By ,

Courts will closely scrutinize conflict of interest and self-dealing transactions (i.e., having an individual and/or corporation on both sides of the same transaction). Traditionally, these types of transactions are subjected to the “entire fairness review”. In order to survive this standard review, the price and the dealing must be fair. Globe Woolen Co. v. Utica Gas & Elec. Co., 224 N.Y. 483 (fundamental business organization case holding that there is a breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty despite a director, who served on two boards of two companies, did not vote on a transaction because neither fair price nor fair dealing was present). Fair price is typically the equivalency of value between what the corporation gave up and what the corporation received. Fair dealing has several factors (none dispositive) of candor and disclosure:

1)      Not only abstaining vote, but excusing yourself to not exert pressure on the deal;

2)      Imbalance between the corporations at negotiation;

3)      Involvement of disinterested advisors; and

4)      Candor – director should not stand in silence when he or she is aware that the agreement is detrimental to one side.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Business Lawyer in Philadelphia: Ex-Employee Alleges Wrongful Conduct in Counterclaim

By ,

Lawing Financial has accused a former employee of conspiring with a co-worker to steal trade secrets, then opening up a competing business. According to Lawing Financial’s lawsuit, the defendant initially helped the company establish its business. Then, he and his co-worker allegedly conspired to steal trade secrets, including client lists, from the firm before resigning without notice to immediately open a competing business. He had been employed by the company for seven years before resigning.

The defendant has denied all accusations of wrongdoing and filed a counterclaim, alleging that he left the company because, among other things, he was not paid compensation he was entitled to. He is also suing Lawing Financial for defamation of character, libel, slander and tortious interference of contracts.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Pursue Compensation for Those Victimized by Wrongful Acts and Business Torts

If you are in need of a business lawyer in Philadelphia, the team at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green has extensive experience in business tort litigation, including copyright or trademark infringement, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition and misappropriation of confidential information. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent businesses throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Insurance Claims

By ,

Pennsylvania Federal Court Rules Insurance Claims Files are Discoverable and Not Subject to the Work-Product Doctrine

In Smith v Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that an insurer’s claims file can be discoverable in a bad faith case, as information in that file on the insurer’s decision to deny the claim is “relevant or could lead to potentially relevant information.” The Court ordered Progressive to produce all relevant documents from its claim file prepared before it could be reasonably anticipated that the claim would be litigated, finding that the work-product doctrine did not apply.

The Court acknowledged that not everything “prepared by or for the agents of an insurer” is protected by the work product doctrine, and that the doctrine only protects documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. Here, the insurer argued that litigation was anticipated as soon as the insured asserted an underinsured motorist claim. The
Court disagreed, and found that the insurer could not have reasonably anticipated litigation until the insurer’s position and the insured’s position as to the extent of the insured’s damages and lost wages came to “loggerheads.” Accordingly, documents prepared before that time fell outside the scope of the work product

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.