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.

Suffolk Superior Court, 2004 CV 3537

In 2000, the plaintiff had purchased a Victorian row house in the South End section of Boston. The plaintiff employed a contractor to perform a historic restoration and update the home to state-of-the-art systems. The parties signed a contract with a “guaranteed maximum price (GMP)” of $950,000.00. Additionally, the contract provided that the work was to be completed within eight (8) months. Construction took more than 36 months and the plaintiff was charged approximately $1.8 million despite the previously agreed upon GMP.

At trial, the plaintiff was successful in showing that the defendant contractor was a sophisticated builder with experience in performing historic restorations of homes similar to the home he contracted with the plaintiff to restore.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $462,436.89 and after the addition of interest to the verdict, the plaintiff was awarded approximately $740,000.00.

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.

Contact a Business Litigation Lawyer

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