Los Altos, CA
Mergers and acquisitions Lawyer at Los Altos, CA
Practice Areas: Mergers & Acquisitions, Corporate & Incorporation ... +4 more
OUTCOME: Appellate court amended judgment and directed trial court to award additional damages and attorneys fees.
Appeal following prior appeal and remand with instructions with client Rael & Letson contending trial court awarded inadequate damages and prejudgment interest against defendant Michael Clark.
OUTCOME: Successful reversal and remand to the trial court to award additional damages and caclulate and award prejudgment interest.
Appeal of a judgment following a jury verdict awarding damages for breach of fiduciary duty and beach of duty of loyalty to client Rael & Letson. Rael & Letson contended that the trial court judge mis ... interpreted the jury's verdict and should have awarded additional damages and prejudgment interest.
OUTCOME: Judgment was affirmed and Clark's case dismissed.
Michael Clark, a minority shareholder in client Rael & Letson (R&L) alleged R&L wrongfully issued new shares in order to dilute his interest in the company and prevent him from voting himself onto the ... board of directors, and the he receives no benefit from his stock because R&L has not declared any dividends since terminating his employment as its CEO He sought to have R&L involuntarily dissolved. R&L successfully demurred and Clark appealed.
OUTCOME: Successful reversal of summary judgment on appeal
Petitioner Steffany Tremain (Tremain ) brought suit against Bell Industries, Inc. (Bell Industries ); Bell Industries, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan (the Bell Plan ); and Metropolitan Life Insurance C ... ompany (MetLife ) (collectively, the Defendants ). Tremain claimed the Defendants wrongfully terminated her long-term disability payments under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA ), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. In addition, Tremain asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § § 1105, 1109(a) and 1132(a)(2) and claims for current and retroactive benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all of Tremain' s claims. Tremain appealed the district court' s judgment only as to her claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Tremain contended the district court erred in applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to review MetLife' s decision to terminate her long-term disability benefits. Tremain also contended the district court erred in refusing to consider evidence outside the administrative record. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court' s summary judgment, and remand for a trial and the district court was directed to review de novo the termination of Tremain' s benefits under the Bell Plan, and determine the amount of any unpaid benefits that might be due to her.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
