Representative Cases for Commercial and Business Litigation

Clients turn to us to seek cost-effective resolutions of commercial and business disputes, whether pre-suit, pre-trial, at trial, or on appeal. We have successfully handled an array of claims in state and federal courts involving complex multi-district and class action proceedings involving multi-millions -- and even billions -- of dollars in damage claims.

Examples of the types of claims we have successfully resolved for our clients include:

  • breach of contract
  • common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting claims
  • securities fraud
  • RICO
  • antitrust
  • breach of employment contracts including restrictive covenants
  • construction liens
  • breach of mortgage servicing agreements
  • breach of unfair competition statutes
  • breach of consumer protection statutes, including New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA)
  • breach of franchise and distribution agreements
  • shareholder and partner disputes

We routinely handle complex issues involving electronic discovery. In defending class action, derivative and large individual claims, clients benefit from our expertise in efficiently managing and assessing information, including millions of pages of documents, and insulating them from spoliation claims.

Representative Cases

Back to Commercial and Business Litigation

  • Sharp v. Sears Home Appliance Showroom, LLC, Dkt No. BUR-L-1077-16 (NJ Superior Court, Burlington Cty, Dec. 19, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss class action claims asserted against national appliance retailer under New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act).

  • In re Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. et al., 08-13555 (JMP) (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Ct.) (representation of Freddie Mac with respect to $767 million recovery on claims involved complex derivative transactions, short term loan transactions, and mortgage seller/servicer related obligations)

  • Elias v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. 2014 WL 3702597 (6th Cir. 2014), affirming 2013 WL 5372887 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (rejecting all of plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal and upheld the dismissal, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, of a complaint filed by a real estate broker and his companies claiming that their inclusion on Freddie Mac’s Exclusionary List violated the antitrust laws and constituted interference with contract, defamation, and civil conspiracy)

  • Isaac v. MLMIC et al., Index No. 2013-883 (Sup. Ct. Erie Co.) (granting a motion to dismiss claims of antitrust violations (the Donnelly Act) against structured settlement company that allegedly conspired with New York's largest medical malpractice insurer to exclude plaintiff settlement brokers from participation in brokering structured settlements)

  • National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. The City of New Brunswick (D.N.J. 2013) (consent order, following pre-discovery summary judgment motion, vacating tax assessments and tax sales that had occurred on Amtrak-owned property within the City of New Brunswick and further ordered the City not to issue any future tax assessments, tax bills or conduct tax sales on any Amtrak-owned property within the City)

  • Elias v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 2013 WL 5372887 (E.D. Mich 2012) (granting motion to dismiss state antitrust law, interference with contract, defamation, and civil conspiracy claims brought by real estate broker and his companies based upon their inclusion on Freddie Mac's Exclusionary List)

  • Doral v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 2012 WL 1184340 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished opinion) (upholding client’s position in mortgage servicing contract dispute that contract damages owed amounted to $124,588, not the more than $10 million)

  • Mendoza v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n, 2012 WL 600828 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that (1) court had subject matter jurisdiction to review a sua sponte remand order because the remand was not based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the district court had no authority to remand a case more than 30 days after removal if the remand was not based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) client had not waived its right to remove by filing an unlawful detainer action in state court with regard to the same property at issue in the removed case, since it dismissed that action following removal; and (4) the district court lacks authority to remand a case at any time based upon a "procedural defect" and a waiver is a procedural defect)

  • Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2011 WL 3911031 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming the dismissal of a putative class action challenging foreclosure procedures for home loans listing the Mortgage Electronic Recording Service (MERS) as the beneficiary on deeds of trust)

  • In re Beacon Associates Securities Litigation, 2010 WL 3895582 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (dismissing class action and derivative claims against auditor client of Madoff feeder fund, allowing claims against other defendants to proceed)

  • In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal of class action Sherman Act and RICO claims against client and only two of the 10 insurer defendant groups in case brought against leading insurance groups and biggest insurance brokers, arising from former NYAG Elliott Spitzer’s investigation of alleged bid-rigging and steering practices)

  • R&G Mortgage Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 584 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (affirming client’s claim that non-party bank failed to intervene timely in client’s injunctive action to terminate its mortgage servicer)

  • In re Cendent Corp. Prides Litigation, 311 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2002) (reversing trial court and ordering trial court to grant Rule 60(b) motion filed by our client (Chase Manhattan Bank) to collect its $23 million share of a class action settlement)

  • Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 153 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1998) (affirming dismissal of claims against client for RICO and securities fraud based upon sale of real estate in Florida at allegedly inflated prices)

  • Adeptech Systems, Inc. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 2012 WL 6720927 (4th Cir. 2012), aff’g, 2011 WL 6820184 (E.D.Va. 2011) (affirming summary judgment on behalf of Freddie Mac dismissing plaintiff software vendor’s multi-million dollar breach of contract, tortious interference and conspiracy claims)

Back to Commercial and Business Litigation