 |
| Business Disputes | ||
 |
||
 |
David Burgess has more than 19 years of experience in representing companies and individuals involved in business disputes and other civil litigation. Iris Grabarek is also involved in the business and civil disputes practice. Requesting a consultation Office consultation: $300 per hour. It is difficult to provide a general description of the consultation process for business disputes, since the issues vary widely in complexity, and business clients' objectives are equally varied. After providing us some information about the issues and factual background of the case, you can expect a focused assessment of the problem, a discussion of the various strategies available, along with their advantages and disadvantages, and an estimate of the anticipated cost. Please do not send details of your case by email. We cannot review any details of your case until we have verified that the firm has no conflicts of interest (for example, we cannot discuss your case with you if we represent an adverse party). If you call and leave a voice message, your call will be returned within 24 hours. We check voice mail several times a day and on weekends. |
|
| A few examples of the firm's civil cases: | ||
|
||
| Breach of Fiduciary Duties | In June 2006 the firm filed suit in the superior court's Business Litigation Session on behalf of a charitable trust and its beneficiary, a historical museum, against a national bank serving as the institutional co-trustee. The trust and museum sought to have the bank replaced as trustee on the ground that it had breached its fiduciary duties by neglecting and mismanaging trust investments. A few months after the litigation was filed, the parties reached a negotiated settlement, and the bank withdrew as trustee. In May 2003, the firm obtained an order of summary judgment (dismissing all claims) for the former president of a high tech company being sued for alleged breach of fiduciary duties. |
|
|
||
| Real Estate Litigation | During 2004 through 2006, the firm defended a disabled man whose upstairs neighbor alleged that he had harmed her by smoking cigarettes in his condominium apartment. After taking the neighbor’s deposition, we moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled in our client's favor and dismissed the case. During 2001 through 2003, the firm represented the owner of industrial land and buildings in a superior court action against a company to which it had sold business assets and leased a manufacturing plant. The complex disputes between these parties were vigorously litigated in three different courts. All disputes were eventually settled through mediation. In 2001, the firm obtained summary judgment for a commercial landlord sued by a business tenant for alleged intentional interference with advantageous business relations. The firm continued to represent the landlord in the tenant's appeal, which was decided in the landlord's favor in October 2003. Through a separate proceeding the firm obtained an order of eviction. The judgments in our client’s favor were upheld in a consolidated appeal. Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003). |
|
|
||
| Breach of Insurance Contract | David brought a lawsuit against underwriters at Lloyd's, London on behalf of a jewelry wholesaler who had been robbed. Lloyd's had denied coverage under the client's jeweler's block insurance policy and attempted to rescind coverage by alleging that the client had misrepresented its inventory levels and some other facts at the time of applying for the coverage. Following a trial, the superior court jury found that the policy was valid and enforceable and the court entered judgment for David's client. Lloyd's appealed, but the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the judgment. Kobico, Inc. v. Pipe, et al., 44 Mass. App. Ct. 103, 688 N.E.2d 1004 (1997). The firm has engaged in litigation in state and federal courts on behalf of business clients who seek to enforce their rights under insurance policies against companies that have denied coverage. |
|
|
||
| Claims Under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A | The firm has represented several clients in consumer and business cases under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A. In addition to detailed demands and negotiating settlements of such claims out of court, David has tried Chapter 93A claims in bench and jury trials (representing plaintiffs in some cases and defendants in others). In one such trial, he represented a business insurance policyholder suing an insurance company for unfair claims settlement practices. In another, he successfully defended the owner of a Downtown Boston office building against a commercial real estate broker's Chapter 93A claim. | |
|
||
| Commercial Litigation | In December 2002 the firm tried a case against a major New England bank, before a jury in the Suffolk Superior Court's Business Litigation Session. The firm's client, a business customer of the bank, had expected payment for some merchandise by wire transfer from a customer in Uganda. Instead, the Ugandan customer sent a forged foreign funds check directly to the bank. A bank employee credited the check to the client's account and failed to place the customary hold on the funds. Seeing the credit to his account, the client believed he had received a wire transfer. When he asked a branch employee of the bank about the credit, that employee confirmed that this was a wire transfer. He then sent the merchandise to Uganda. Weeks later, the check was dishonored and the bank charged back the client's account, invoking its rights under the Uniform Commercial Code and taking money from the client’s certificates of deposit and savings account to cover the overdraft. The jury returned a verdict for our client, awarding him damages for the bank's negligent misrepresentation that the credit to the client’s account was the result of a wire transfer. | |
|
||
| Breach of Contract – Sale of a Business | In 2001, the firm filed suit on behalf of the seller of the intangible assets of a printing business, against the buyer of those assets. The parties' agreement had required the buyer to pay the seller a percentage of new sales to the seller's former customers. The amount owed was several hundred thousand dollars. After the superior court allowed our motion for prejudgment security and injunctive relief, the buyer agreed to negotiate and the dispute was settled. | |
|
||
| Commercial Guaranty Litigation | In 2004 and 2005, the firm defended the principals of a manufacturing business in an action by a major commercial lender to enforce loan guaranties. The case was litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The parties eventually reached a negotiated settlement. | |
|
||
| Breach of Fiduciary Duties and Fraudulent Transfer | Following the bankruptcy of a high volume mortgage lending company, David defended the company's former president against multi-million dollar claims brought by the trustee in bankruptcy. The trustee alleged that the former president had engaged in interest rate speculation, that he had violated fiduciary duties owed to the company, and that he had received payments and other benefits that amounted to fraudulent transfers, recoverable under the United States Bankruptcy Code. After a bench trial, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the former president was not liable on any of the trustee's claims. | |
|
||
| Dissenter's Rights | In 2004, the firm filed suit on behalf of an investment limited partnership asserting a dissenter's rights claim following the sale of a bank in which it had owned stock. The case was settled within a few weeks. | |
|
||
| Breach of Distributorship Agreement | Representing an office furniture distributor, David brought suit against a major office furniture manufacturer in federal court, seeking damages for breach of a distributorship agreement and for unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A. The manufacturer had refused to allow the distributor to serve as the dealer on a national contract for the sale of office workstations to a publishing company, despite the publishing company's wish to have the distributor serve as its dealer. After several depositions, the parties reached a monetary settlement through mediation. | |
|
||
| Nonprofit Entities Involved in Municipal Litigation | Between 2003 and 2005, the firm represented a nonprofit youth theater organization in a dispute with another nonprofit entity and a Massachusetts town over the use of a town-owned former school building. The dispute was litigated in two different courts before the parties negotiated a settlement. Between 2001 and 2005, the firm represented a nonprofit corporation dedicated to the preservation of open space in litigation against a real estate developer who sought to develop 28 acres of farm land. The town in which the land was located was a party to the litigation, which involved issues of municipal law (the application of a town's first refusal option to purchase and preserve as open space land that has been designated as for agricultural use for tax purposes). That case was recently decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court. First Financial Holding Corporation v. The Shelter Island Fund, Inc., 64 Mass. App. Ct. 1108 (2005). |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| top of page | ||
|
||
Legal Disclaimer