Category: Business Law

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 Contract Lawyers: Arbitration Clauses in Nursing Home Contracts

By ,

Over the past decade, arbitration clauses have become increasingly common. Look closely at your cellphone service contract, credit card contract or student loan agreement, and you are likely to discover that you have given up your right to seek redress in court in the event of a dispute. Nursing homes have also embraced these clauses. The ethics of mandatory arbitration for nursing home patients is even more questionable than in other contexts, because elderly patients may not be able to understand that they are surrendering this important right.

Recently in Massachusetts, an elderly nursing home patient was murdered by her 97-year-old roommate after a disagreement over moving a nightstand so that the decedent could make her way to the bathroom. The decedent’s son sought to hold the nursing home accountable, only to discover the nursing home contract forced any dispute into private arbitration.

The patient’s son has questioned whether the arbitration process could really be objective. The arbitration firm, who ultimately resolved this dispute, had previously handled over 400 arbitrations for the law firm representing the nursing home. Because the arbitration firm draws such a substantial amount of business from the nursing home, it would appear they might have a reason to resolve cases in their favor. In this case, the firm ruled in the nursing home’s favor, without providing any basis for their ruling. The arbitrator’s “opinion” consisted of a single check mark indicating that the nursing home had not been negligent in its care of the late patient.

Despite these issues, judges have consistently upheld mandatory arbitration clauses, even where the individuals who signed the contracts did not understand what rights they were forfeiting. However, lawmakers are becoming increasingly concerned because the private nature of arbitration proceedings can shield the public from patterns of wrongdoing in nursing homes. Recently, lawmakers in 16 states have urged the federal government to deny Medicaid and Medicare funding to nursing homes that use mandatory arbitration clauses.

In this case, the patient’s son challenged the validity of the arbitration clause in his mother’s nursing home contract on grounds that he signed the admissions papers on her behalf, but did not have the authority to bind her to arbitration. A judge found in his favor. Appeals courts across the country are following suit and throwing out nursing home contracts signed by family members of residents.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Businesses and Individuals in Contract Disputes

If you have a contract dispute, or are being sued for breach of contract, the experienced Philadelphia contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

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.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Public Accommodation Requirements

By ,

Title III of the ADA

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act regulates the accessibility requirements that businesses must follow to be in compliance with Title III. They address both outside of businesses such as sidewalks or ramps, as well as indoor business structure such as bathroom accessibility and corners. All new construction or alterations must adhere to this title. Entities also have an on-going obligation to remove non-complaint architectural barriers in existing facilities is it is readily available. This determination is dependent on the size and the resources of the business. This applies to, but is not limited to, commercial facilities such as factories, office buildings or warehouses, private entities that offer examinations or related to educational purposes, and most notably public entities.

Any individual with a disability who is denied access to a place of public accommodation due to a non-compliant architectural barrier may sue under Title III for an injunction requiring the business to become ADA-compliant and reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. According to a recent study, nearly twice as many Title III suits were filed in Pennsylvania’s federal courts between July 1, 2012 and January 1, 2015 than during the preceding thirty-month period. These suits—most of which were filed by a few individuals represented by a small number of plaintiff’s attorneys—frequently settle before trial, resulting in businesses paying the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees as well as the cost of remediating non-compliant facilities.

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.