Representative Results

The following is a representative sample of the Firm’s results from various forums on recent matters by practice area:

Securities and Commercial Litigation

 

  • The Firm succeeded in convincing a Massachusetts Superior Court judge to order to arbitration certain claims that were brought by a trustee on behalf of a trust against its investment advisor and broker-dealer.  The trustee of the trust objected to the submission to arbitration, arguing that she never saw, reviewed or signed the operative agreement containing the mandatory arbitration provision because the investment advisor informed her that the agreement was a "boilerplate form."  Therefore, she signed the agreement without reading it.  The plaintiff also argued that the mandatory arbitration provision was unconscionable.  The Court rejected all of the plaintiff's arguments and granted our clients' motion to dismiss the case and compel arbitration of the claims.
  • An accredited investor sued his former registered representative and former Broker-Dealer.  The Firm represented both Respondents in arbitration.  A FINRA Panel ruled in favor of the Respondents, dismissed the action in its entirety, ordered that the financial advisor's record be expunged and ruled that the customer was obligated to pay forum fees.  The Award, as required, will be submitted to the trial court for an order directing FINRA to carry out the expungement directive.  Consequently, there is no record of this action on the advisor's licenses.
  • On behalf of its broker-dealer client, the Firm initiated a FINRA Arbitration against two of its client's former advisors.  The statement of claim sought repayment of advanced commissions paid to the advisors because the underlying transactions were not completed and therefore the commissions were not earned.  The advisors asserted various counterclaims against the Firm's client.  After a week arbitration hearing, the arbitration panel issued an award requiring the advisors to pay the broker-dealer ninety-nine percent of the claimed advanced commissions and requiring the broker-dealer to pay the advisors only ten percent of their claimed counterclaim damages.
  • The Firm defeated an opposing party's attempt to have a federal court throw out an $11 million arbitration award the Firm had obtained in favor of its client.  Instead, the court confirmed the award in its entirety, making the award enforceable as a federal court judgment.  The Firm obtained the award in 2009, after an arbitrator found that the client's joint venture partner had breached numerous contractual and fiduciary obligations to the client, an international inventor and entrepreneur.  Including interest and attorneys' fees, the award was approximately $1 million dollars higher than the parties' contractual maximum, and significantly greater than any settlement offer.
  • The Firm obtained a summary judgment finding, on all claims, on behalf of a nationwide veterinary hospital and two individual veterinarians.  In the case, the plaintiff alleged that the hospital and veterinarians were negligent, caused her emotional distress and violated the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act by recommending emergency surgery for her dog after the dog was injured in a car accident.  After extensive discovery, the Firm filed a summary judgment motion with the Court and convinced the Court to dismiss all of the claims, thereby allowing the Firm’s clients to avoid a trial.
  • The Firm filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of its client, an insurance company, which was one of several respondents in a FINRA arbitration filed by a customer alleging sales practices violations.  The motion convinced the customer to voluntarily dismiss the Firm’s client from the arbitration.
  • In California federal court, the Firm was able to obtain a dismissal of a case against the Firm’s client, a Massachusetts-based provider of digital in-room entertainment and high-speed internet services to the hotel industry.  The client had been sued by the dominant competitor in the industry for hiring a former employee that it claimed had misappropriated trade secrets and customer information.  The Firm convinced the Court that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the Massachusetts company.
  • Several customers filed an NASD Action in Alabama against their financial advisor, his securities broker-dealer and an insurance company relating to their purchase of variable life insurance and annuity products.  The Firm represented the insurance company which was the underwriter of the insurance and annuity products.  The Firm was able to convince the customers that their allegations related to the acts or omissions of the financial advisor and broker-dealer, not the insurance company, and the customers voluntarily dismissed the insurance company from the NASD Action.
  • The Firm represented a party in a close corporation who was sued in Massachusetts Superior Court.  The plaintiff sought an injunction against the Firm’s client. On behalf of its client, the Firm filed a cross-motion to appoint a receiver.  The Firm convinced the Court to deny the majority of the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and to appoint the receiver requested by the Firm.
  • The Firm represented a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation dispute.  The Firm was successful in avoiding litigation and structuring an exit strategy for its client, including severance, and consulting fees, in addition to valuation and payment for his ownership interest.
  • The Firm represented a broker and a national broker-dealer which were sued in arbitration by customers claiming they were sold unsuitable investments.  An NASD Panel ruled in favor of the broker and the broker-dealer, dismissed the action in its entirety, and ordered that the broker’s record be expunged.  That Award was upheld by the trial court, which ordered the NASD to carry out the expungement directive. Consequently, there is no record of this action on the broker’s license.
  • The Firm represented two brokers who were sued in arbitration by a customer claiming he was sold unsuitable investments.  A FINRA Panel ruled in favor of the brokers, dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered that the brokers’ records be expunged. That Award was upheld by the trial court, which ordered FINRA to carry out the expungement directive.  Consequently, there is no record of this action on the brokers’ licenses.
  • In three recent customer dispute arbitrations, the Firm successfully moved for and obtained pre-merits dismissals of all claims asserted.
  • The Firm defended a national provider of reference laboratory services in an arbitration brought by one of the provider's customers, claiming that the provider had breached its warranty, because it allegedly provided laboratory services that were inferior to those offered by the provider's main competitor. After extensive discovery -- including review and analysis of thousands of the customer's patient files -- and a lengthy arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found in favor of the Firm's client. In a comprehensive written opinion, the arbitrator adopted every one of the Firm's arguments, and ruled that the provider's services were equal to or superior than those of its competitor.