Commercial Law

• We represented a national office supplies retailer that was charged with unfair and deceptive sales practices. The plaintiff purchased computer equipment from the retailer, and the contract of sale provided for timed, automatic withdrawals from her bank accounts. The plaintiff alleged that the equipment failed to meet her reasonable expectations, and that the client had engaged in unlawful trade sales practices, and unlawful debt collection regarding alleged inappropriate and excessive withdrawals in violation of the contract. The firm analyzed the plaintiff’s level of sophistication with the equipment and worked with the computer manufacturer to better understand what triggered the apparent multiple withdrawals. The client was able to establish that plaintiff’s error was primarily responsible for the equipment failure and that the computer manufacturer’s account-creation software had also malfunctioned. The case settled for a nominal amount.
• We represented a company sued in several jurisdictions as an alleged corporate successor-in-interest to a manufacturer which had developed the industrial product at issue. Several decades had elapsed since the date of the alleged acquisition, and there was no direct evidence of the terms of the transaction. We established that a separate corporation had acquired and dissolved the client's alleged predecessor, and that the predecessor had only purchased the technology and design patterns, not stock. We also defended the corporate 30(b)(6) deposition and later moved for summary judgment. Following extensive briefing and argument, the trial court entered summary judgment in the client’s favor on that issue and fashioned an order which has since been adopted in subsequent cases.
• Similarly, we represented the interests of a publicly held corporation in a products liability action in which plaintiff alleged that the client had purchased the assets/liabilities of the company which had injured the plaintiff, prior to the client's having dissolved that company. The plaintiff also alleged fraud in connection with the client's dissolution. We worked with corporate and national counsel to defend the client's 30(b)(6) corporate deposition and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the client's dissolution occurred in the normal course in order to effect a consolidation and that there was no evidence of fraudulent reorganization in anticipation of product liability litigation. Just prior to argument, the parties mediated and achieved the client’s litigation goals.
• We represented a sandblaster on a contractual indemnity claim brought by the general contractor's insurer, seeking recovery of defense costs that it incurred in connection with two prior personal injury lawsuits alleging mold exposure. The personal injury lawsuits sought damages that allegedly occurred, in part, as a result of sandblasting activities during a major remodeling project in a historic building. The general contractor sought to compel arbitration, which would have provided it with a more favorable forum. We moved to dismiss the arbitration on the grounds that the indemnification clause in the subcontract between the general contractor and the sandblasting company was not enforceable under prevailing law. That arbitrator agreed with that position and the matter resolved on favorable terms for our client.
• We represented a family in an unfair trade practices claim against an RV seller. The seller advertised a particular RV that was not available in fact. The clients purchased a substitute or “loaner” RV from the seller, based on representations that they could later trade the unit and receive credit back against the purchase of the RV that was advertised originally. The loaner was defective and the seller had misrepresented that it was a new unit. The plaintiffs alleged claims for fraud and unlawful trade practices, and the seller refused to mediate. At trial, the jury awarded the prayer to our clients and the court awarded substantial attorney’s fees, including an enhanced prevailing party fee.