Providing accurate, timely, and insightful legal commentary
Connectiuct Business Litigation Blog
Commentary on lawsuits and legal issues impacting Connecticut businesses. Authored by experienced business litigation attorney, Kane Bennett of Aeton Law Partners, LLP.
Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court Cases and Briefs Online
There are three good online resources to get information on appellate court cases in Connecticut. The first resource is a new addition to the state judicial branch website. The public now has access to the case and docket information regarding Supreme Court and Appellate cases. Here is the link. Previously, you could only access trial level cases. This is a great addition to the website and will cut down on trips to the clerk’s office to check on the status of a case. You can get download advanced release opinions from the Supreme Court and Appellate Court. Here is the link. You can also download copies of some briefs for cases assigned for argument before the Supreme Court. Here is the link. This website is maintained by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Connecticut Bar Association. Briefs are typically posted several months after being filed with the court.
Forensic Accounting in Connecticut Business Litigation
Forensic accountants are frequently necessary in business litigation. This is my next installment of the "ask the experts" series. Stephen Pedneault is an expert in forensic accounting. He is the principal of Forsenic Accounting Services. Here is my interview with Stephen. Disclaimer: I am not endorsing any experts that I feature on this blog or the opinions expressed. I am posting these interviews to offer insights from the various professionals that get involved with business litigation cases. What are the biggest issues you see now with respect to forensic accounting and business litigation? Probably the biggest issue we face in every case regardless of the venue it’s in is the availability of records. We can pretty much figure out anything if we have records available, computerized records or paper records. The biggest challenge for us is getting access to them and actually getting the opposing side to produce them. That’s our biggest stumbling block in pretty much every engagement we do. If a business owner suspects fraud, how soon should they come to you or an attorney to deal with that issue? Well as soon as possible. We get a lot of calls from exactly the audience you described and one of the first things we have to ask them is you know do you have counsel, do you have an attorney that’s either representing you as a shareholder or a partner or a member, or does the LLC or the entity have counsel because before I hear too much of the story there’s no privilege between
No Contract, No Problem – Charter Oak Gets A Chance To Prove Its Case
In a decision that will be officially release tomorrow (download)the Connecticut appellate court ordered a new trial in favor of Charter Oak Lending for the claims it brought against employees who defected to a competitor. Unless there is a successful appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, this means Charter Oak will get a second chance to prove its claims against the key employees despite the lack of a written contract in place covering non-competition. I originally posted about this case in November of 1999 when Charter Oak lost at the trial level. The case result had generated media interest surrounding the claims because the damages and the lack of a contract governing the employment relationship. As I noted at the time, it is always better to have a written contract in place with employees to govern post termination conduct involving competition, solicitation, confidential information, and trade secrets. However, the lack of contract does not by itself leave a business without a remedy especially if the situation involves use of trade secrets or confidential information or the employees actively competing before departure. In Charter Oak, the trial court dismissed the claims finding that Charter Oak failed to make out a threshold case during the trial. In other words, the case never reached the level of a final decision on the merits because the judge found that the basic elements of the claims were not met. The basic claims were breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair trade practices. The appellate court reversed the decision and found that facts existed to make out threshold claims for these causes of action. Therefore, the trial court judge
Navigating FINRA’s Mandatory Arbitration Requirement – An Overview
Raymond & Bennett attorney Joseph Blyskal contributed the following post to this Blog. I recently read an article indicating that arbitration was the preferred forum for member companies of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, but with a caveat–that the only real reason it was preferred was as damage control for the industry. With only some exceptions, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) requires arbitration of industry disputes, which simply means disputes amongst or between its members and associated persons. In addition, while nonmembers can compel members to arbitrate, nonmembers of FINRA cannot be compelled to arbitrate. Regardless of whether the motive is fiscal, public relations, or other, the mandatory arbitration requirement may be hard to get around. However, the presence of a good faith claim against nonmembers can create the option to litigate an industry dispute outside of arbitration. FINRA members are defined as any entity: “who is registered or has applied for registration under the Rules of FINRA” or “[a] sole proprietor, partner, officer, director, or branch manager of a member, or other natural person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, or a natural person engaged in the investment banking or securities business who is directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by a member, whether or not any such person is registered or exempt from registration with FINRA.”FINRA Manual Rule 13100(r). Some examples include: Metlife Securities, Inc., Bernad L. Madoff (now obviously inactive), and ING Financial Markets, LLC. There are only a few enumerated exceptions to the mandatory arbitration rule. Disputes arising out of the insurance business activities of a member
Computer Forensics In Business Litigation – Ask The Expert
Many business litigation cases require experts in various fields. I am going to feature experts on this blog in an "ask the expert" series of interviews. Disclaimer: I am not endorsing any experts that I feature on this blog or the opinions expressed. I am posting these interviews to offer my readers some insights from the various professionals that get involved with business litigation cases. Monique Ferraro is an expert in computer forensics and the principal of Technology Forensics, LLC. She is also an attorney. The following is my recent interview with Monique. Q: What issues do you see in business disputes involving computer forensics: A: Mostly, we see parties seeking email and deleted email. Increasingly, lawyers are asking for email and all electronically stored information containing metadata in their discovery requests. When they don’t get what they asked for initially, or if the party is not able to produce the information on their own, they call us. We figure out the best way to obtain the information requested without disrupting the business process while maintaining the integrity of the potential evidence and providing a solid chain of custody. As far as the types of cases, we see computer forensics being requested in every type of litigation, from contract disputes to debt collection, employment litigation and even motor vehicle accidents. Q: Many people think that when they delete computers docs and emails, its deleted. In laymans terms, what really happens to it? Can it be recovered? A: It’s
Business Lawsuit Roundup
New Connecticut business litigation decisions and lawsuits of interest for February 2011: Appellate Decisions: Schirmer v. Souza The Appellate Court upheld an award in favor of the plaintiffs on claims of unjust enrichment concerning renovations to a residence on defendants’ property. In a somewhat strange set of facts, the plaintiffs loaned money to the occupants of a home thinking they had title when the defendants actually had title. The defendants sold the house after the renovations. Plaintiffs expected over $100,000 from the sale of home to cover the renovation costs and instead got nothing. Plaintiffs sued an recovered based on unjust enrichment. Gateway, Kelso and Co. v. West Hartford No. 1, LLC The Appellate Court upheld denial of summary judgment holding that a court finding in a pre-judgment proceeding could not provide the basis for summary judgment. Plaintiff moved for a prejudgment remedy and it was denied because the defendant raised a defense based on the plaintiff’s failure to be licensed. The defendant then tried to use that same ruling to obtain a judgment in the case. The trial court denied the motion finding that the earlier ruling was not sufficient. The Appellate Court upheld the denial of summary judgment and agreed that the ruling in the prejudgment remedy proceeding could not be the basis of the summary judgment ruling. Tzovolos v. Wiseman The Appellate Court adopted the trial court’s findings in full in this case involving two complex commercial disputes over the ownership and security interests in restaurant equipment. The plaintiffs alleged breach
About CTBL
Connecticut Business Litigation is the most well-read litigation blog in the state of Connecticut. Founded by Attorney Kane Bennett in 2009, a pioneer in Attorney Marketing in the state of connecticut