Year: 2011

Ross & Orenstein Overturns Grant of Summary Judgment in Estate Contest

We overturned a New York state court’s grant of summary judgment in a dispute over the validity of a will for her $10 million estate. An appeals court held that the trial court overlooked issues of fact about whether the decedent understood the consequences of executing the challenged will and whether she was under undue influence at the time she executed the will. In Re Will of Moles, 90 A.D.3d 473 (1st Dep’t 2011).

11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Claim Against Hedge Funds

After we brought a fraudulent transfer case for a group of bondholders against a public company, the company brought an antitrust case against the holders. We obtained an immediate dismissal of the antitrust case. An 11th Circuit panel affirmed. CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Management, LLC, No. 661 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011).

Venue Victory for Arizona Investors Affirmed in $70+ Million Fraud Case

A federal district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to send a case back to state court, where we and our co-counsel originally filed it. The case was brought against attorneys and accountants for Mortgages Ltd. CBIZ, Inc. v. Ashkenazi, 2:10-cv-02739-RCJ (D. Ariz.).

Ross & Orenstein Wins Summary Judgment in Sun Country Adversary Proceeding

In a case in the Sun Country bankruptcy in Minnesota, we won summary judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff, a creditors’ trust, brought a clawback claim against an individual for $500,000 and tried to disallow his claim for an additional $240,000. The issue was the individual’s right to receive royalties for his role in creating the airline’s “VIP Club” loyalty program. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Kohler, Adv. No. 10-3184 (Bankr. D. Minn.).

Ross & Orenstein Gets Case Against Former Corporate Director Dismissed

Harry Niska successfully defended a former corporate director in Minnesota state court against claims that he breached his fiduciary duties and committed fraud. A trust representing shareholders of a failed corporation sued the director, alleging that he concealed facts when he recommended that the corporation enter into a financing transaction with an investment fund that the director was affiliated with. The court granted the director’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ross & Orenstein Wins Summary Judgment for Investment Banking Firm in Fee Dispute

We obtained summary judgment in New York state court on behalf of an investment banking firm in a dispute over fees. The defendant claimed that the investment banking firm didn’t perform under the contract. The court held that the firm was entitled to the full $650,000 fee. Trump Securities v. Purolite Company, Index No. 602809/2009 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.).

Ross & Orenstein Gets Antitrust Case Against Bondholders Dismissed

We successfully defended a group of bondholders against a company’s claim that the bondholders were engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy. The holders argued that the case was filed in retaliation for their original lawsuit alleging that the company was funneling its assets to insiders. The court dismissed the antitrust complaint without even waiting for the last brief to be filed. CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Management, LLC, Case No. 1:11-cv-117-TCB (N.D. Ga.).

Ross & Orenstein Gets Noncompete Action Dismissed

We successfully defended an employee against his former employer’s action to enforce a non-compete agreement. In granting the employee’s motion to dismiss, the court found that the non-compete agreement was invalid and that the former employer’s complaint was not specific enough about the trade secrets that it sought to protect. LJK Companies, Inc. v. Miller, Case No. 27-CV-10-16549 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin County).

Attorney’s Fees Awarded on Promissory Note Enforcement

A New York special master agreed that $156,000 in attorney’s fees was reasonable in the enforcement of an $800,000 promissory note by Ross & Orenstein and ordered that the debtor on the note pay the fees. The special master observed that “this was not a simple suit on a promissory note.” Parket v. T-Ink, Inc., Index No. 600398/2010 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County).