The San Mateo County Superior Court has issued very favorable decisions in the two breaches of fiduciary duty cases the firm took to trial. The Court found in favor of the firm’s clients in each case, ruled that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties (one under Delaware law, the other under California partnership law), awarded seven figures in total damages, and set one case for a punitive damages phase of trial, and the other for post-trial briefing on the recovery of attorneys’ fees.
We successfully defended a software gaming studio in federal district court against claims by a former founder who, after being convicted of a felony, attempted to repurchase an interest in the company under an alleged option agreement.
On behalf of a major shareholder of a music company, the firm filed a petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court to enforce its client’s rights to inspect the company’s financial books and records, resulting in the company quickly complying with its obligations.
On behalf of the seller in a real estate deal, the firm obtained a favorable settlement of claims by a lender that the seller allegedly failed to pay off a mortgage during the sale.
We successfully represented a credit union in a case involving lien priority against competing claims by a national bank and the Internal Revenue Service.
After seven years of litigation, the firm recovered more than a half-million dollars for a class of employees who worked without pay for almost two months at a video game development company. After the employing entity went bankrupt, the firm pursued the individual owners of the company for many years and obtained a settlement funded by those individual owners.
The firm obtained a favorable settlement for its client in a lawsuit alleging violations of California Labor Code §970 and related promissory estoppel claims.
The firm is defending an accounting firm against class claims for violations of Federal Securities Laws, including Rule 10b-5.
The firm successfully represented a major financial services firm against a competitor that used a confusingly similar name and logo, resulting in the competitor changing its business name, shutting down its website, and changing its logo – all without litigation.
