Scott D. Norton's Legal Cases (2)

Litigation

Wilson Vs. Tongxin International

May 02, 2014

OUTCOME: Tongxin International (client) was awarded $2,646,000 and $4.2 million, respectively.

Plaintiff Rudy Wilson, the former CEO for defendant/counter-plaintiff Tongxin International Ltd., brought suit, alleging breach of his employment contract, violation of public policy, and inappropriate ... restrictions to his stock holdings in the company. Tongxin, an automotive component manufacturer, countersued, alleging embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duties, in connection with an agreement between Wilson and former CFO Jackie Chang to remove $1.4 million dollars from the company’s bank account. Wilson had alleged those funds were for the creation of a reserve for the benefit of the company, as a result of the disagreement with Tongxin’s board of directors. An Oakland County jury determined that plaintiff embezzled funds from and breached his fiduciary duties to defendant, and awarded $2,646,000 and $4.2 million, respectively, to defendant. The jury determined that plaintiff did not prove his claims and awarded no damages.

Arbitration

Chang v. Tongxin International Ltd

May 07, 2013

OUTCOME: Tongxin International Ltd. (client) was awarded $882,500 to reimburse the amount claimant embezzled, $89,600 in unauthorized compensation taken by claimant, and $250,000 in enhanced damages.

Plaintiff/claimant Jackie Chang brought claims for breach of employment contract, Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and defamation before the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the prov ... isions of her employment contract. Defendant/respondent Tongxin International Ltd. brought counterclaims for embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and exemplary damages including a claim pursuant to MCL 600.2919a. The arbitration panel awarded respondent $882,500 to reimburse the amount claimant embezzled, $89,600 in unauthorized compensation taken by claimant, $250,000 in enhanced damages per MCL 600.2919a, and $170,872 in fees and costs. The panel found no cause of action for claimant.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained