
Boston, Massachusetts
1 Constitution Plz
Boston, MA 02129
Directions
Providence, Rhode Island
Shakespeare Hall,
128 Dorrance Street
Providence, RI 02903
Las Vegas, Nevada
729 South Seventh Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
|
|
The following is a sample of
cases resolved by members of the firm's Business Litigation
Group.
For more information, please contact
us here
or call 866-414-0400.
U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts; First Circuit Court of Appeals
Parker Scheer was retained to represent a Massachusetts
real estate development firm against a Florida joint-venturer
who had abandoned the venture. The matter was tried in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Although
the trial judge returned a finding in favor of our client,
the award was based on an arithmetic error committed by the
trial judge, prompting this firm to appeal the decision to
the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. Following oral argument,
the Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court had indeed
made a $400,000 computational error and increased the original
award by that amount.
Middlesex Superior Court; Massachusetts Appeals Court
Parker Scheer was retained to defend a Massachusetts real
estate company against a claim that our client was responsible
for the plaintiff being charged with discrimination by both
a private party and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We
obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client.
Thereafter, the party who brought suit against our client
settled with the Attorney General whose office was responsible
to civilly prosecute the underlying discrimination case. The
party again sued our client, again claiming that our client
was responsible for discrimination and Parker Scheer again
obtained summary judgment in favor of our client. The plaintiff
appealed and, on October 22, 2002, the Massachusetts Appeals
Court affirmed the summary judgment.
Suffolk Superior Court
Parker Scheer was retained to try this case on behalf of the
plaintiff who had made a substantial business investment based
upon the defendant’s misrepresentations. We obtained
a six-figure judgment for the full value of the investment
along with interest. The defendant appealed but subsequently
settled by payment of the full amount of the damages found
by the court.
Back to top
Middlesex Superior Court
In calendar year 2000, Parker Scheer’s client sold the
assets of his computer graphics web business to a publicly
traded German company. As an incentive to keep him employed
(as COO of the newly established business unit), the acquiring
company structured the deal so that, in addition to the seven
figure initial payment and stock options, our client would
receive periodic additional payments based upon length of
service. The first was an additional $500,000 if our client
were still employed at the end of twelve months or terminated
“without cause” as that term was defined in an
employment agreement signed as an adjunct to the asset purchase
agreement.
The company suffered a series of financial setbacks as a result
of the worsening economy and, in late December 2000, the company’s
president told our client that he needed to agree to restructure
his deal, and that, if he refused, “things would get
ugly”. Our client had been assured that the company
was extremely satisfied with his performance up to that point
and during that meeting, as well.
Our client refused to restructure the agreement, and, as a
consequence, the company presented my client with a list of
“for cause” reasons for termination, approximately
three weeks prior to the date he would have vested for the
$500,000 payment. At his last meeting at the company, he was
handed the “cause” letter along with a separate
document offering a $150,000.00 payment as full and final
settlement of his claims and a further threat that if he did
not accept the payment, the company would sue him for fraud
and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, seeking damages
of several million dollars.
Our client rejected the proposal, viewing it as a strong-arm
tactic, and the company did file its law suit. Parker Scheer
immediately filed a counterclaim, and then filed a separate
law suit against the officers individually (under theories
discussed in recent Massachusetts cases). The plaintiff company
sought arbitration under an arbitration clause in the employment
agreement (which was absent from the asset purchase agreement).
As it was important to have all issues heard together in the
same venue, we were successful in convincing the court that,
while the definition of “cause” was in the employment
agreement, our counterclaims and the new claims in the second
suit were based upon breaches of the asset purchase agreement
which would not be subject to arbitration. Following the filings,
the company requested immediate settlement negotiations. We
ended up settling the case in under three months from the
date of my client’s termination, recovering more than
80% of the value of the claim. After settlement, opposing
counsel confided that our separate suit strategy was so effective,
that the U.S. company, and its German parent, could not wait
to settle and limit the risk.
Back to top
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
This was a Title 17 copyright action in which a departing
employee of my client removed all copies of software which
he developed for the company. There was no doubt that the
defendant was an employee, was paid a salary, and had no written
agreement altering the “Works for Hire” doctrine.
We sought a preliminary injunction and the court ordered that
the defendant surrender all copies of the program whether
in electronic form or written source code. The judge scheduled
an expedited trial (6 weeks from hearing) and, just prior
to trial, Parker Scheer we settled the case with the defendant
relinquishing all claimed rights for consideration of $1.00.
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Parker Scheer represented one of several defendants sued for
claimed anti-trust violations, under the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act. Though our client was initially presented with a high
six figure demand for settlement, we were able to resolve
all claims at a cost to our client of less than $10,000.
Middlesex Superior Court
Parker Scheer represented those officers and directors serving
on the management committee of a large regional accounting
firm who were sued by the firm founder for, among other claims,
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. The case
was settled upon acceptable terms and all claims were dismissed
against our seven clients.
Middlesex Superior Court
Parker Scheer was retained to represent a buyer of real estate
after the seller refused to perform under the Offer to Purchase.
Following a five day trial in Middlesex Superior Court, the
court found on behalf of Parker Scheer’s client the plaintiff,
and ordered appropriate relief.
Arbitration-American Arbitration Association
Parker Scheer represented those officers and directors serving
on the management committee of a large regional accounting
firm who were sued by the firm founder for, among other claims,
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. The case
was settled upon acceptable terms and all claims were dismissed
against our seven clients.
Arbitration-American Arbitration Association
A client of Parker Scheer, providing computer software consulting
was sued for damages arising out of a claimed breach of contract
relative to the implementation of custom enterprise-wide software.
After a three day arbitration, the arbitrator found against
the claimant and for Parker Scheer’s client, the respondent,
and awarded attorneys fees and costs in the amount of approximately.
$45,000.00.
Settled Prior to Suit
Parker Scheer was asked by another firm to represent an employee
of its corporate client, as claims had been made against both,
for purported violation of our client’s former employer’s
confidentiality agreement. We exchanged correspondence with
the former employer’s counsel and convinced him that
the agreement was so poorly drafted and the evidence so unconvincing,
that it would not be a smart “test case” for his
client. The matter was dropped against both potential defendants.
To contact a business litigation lawyer click
here, or call our offices in Boston seven days
a week at toll free 866-414-0400.
Back to top
|