 Halberstadt Curley represents businesses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a wide variety of commercial disputes. Our attorneys have successfully litigated everything from sophisticated anti-trust claims to everyday collection matters. You are not going to be paying us to learn a case. Because of our experience we will let you know at the outset of our representation exactly what our strategy is for giving you the upper hand in your most important cases.
Partnership disputes can be costly and emotionally devastating for all involved. Even though the parties are usually close friends or family members it is important for partnerships to have written agreements which clearly define the rights of the partners. The partnership agreement should include, among other things, the procedures that will be followed in the event the partners have a dispute or a deadlock, appropriate “buy-sell” provisions for departing partners, and identify the rights of the partners in the event of the death of another partner. In the absence of a written partnership agreement, the courts will apply a statute, the Uniform Partnership Act, to determine the rights and duties of the partners.
Breach of contract actions sound simple enough, but there are a myriad of rules which govern how contracts are construed and enforced by the courts. Even in cases which seem open and shut based upon the language found in the parties’ contract, complex legal issues, such as the enforceability of limitations of liability or of “liquidated damages” provisions and application of the Uniform Commercial Code, may dramatically impact the outcome of the case. Halberstadt Curley’s attorneys have litigated virtually every type of contract imaginable, successfully prosecuting and defending breach of contract claims in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Unlike breach of contract claims, fraud and misrepresentation claims carry with them the possibility of an award of punitive damages. Fraud and misrepresentation claims typically involve allegations that one party to a transaction failed to disclose material information to another party to the transaction. We have successfully prosecuted and defended fraud and misrepresentation claims in a wide range of cases, including failure to disclose water damage and mold contamination, fraud in the sale of securities, and fraud perpetrated by automobile dealers.
Claims for slander and defamation aren’t just for celebrities; in fact, claims for slander and defamation are most likely to prevail when “public figures” are not the victim of the comments at issue. Defamation claims are often closely related to claims involving wrongful termination. A $15 million NYSE arbitration award was entered in favor of three stockbrokers who were defamed after their broker-dealer terminated them. Defamation is a communication that tends to harm an individual's reputation so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him or her.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO) can be a powerful statute in a commercial litigation when the wrongful conduct falls within the complex definition of a pattern of racketeering activity. The statute allows plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees and treble damages against owners of companies individually. Although RICO remains a powerful law that should be utilized in appropriate cases, too often attorneys attempt to plead RICO cases where the facts simply do not justify it. The outcome can be disastrous; attorney’s fees increase exponentially, discovery is unnecessarily drawn out, and the plaintiff can find itself on the wrong end of the defendant’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs for being forced to defend a frivolous RICO claim. It essential that you have attorneys with the experience and knowledge to let you know whether a RICO claim will truly strengthen your litigation position – or undermine the credibility of your case.
Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) were promulgated to provide consumers with powerful remedies in the event they are victims of a long list of business practices that the legislature has deemed unfair or deceptive. Businesses that are found to have violated the UTPCPL face the prospect of paying the consumer’s attorney’s fees and costs and treble damages. Claims under the UTPCPL occur frequently in context of automobile sales, the sale of residential real estate, and the sale of insurance products.
Interference with existing and prospective contractual relations is a problem often encountered when competing businesses battle over customers, clients, and employees. While our free market economy encourages competition, there is line that has been drawn by the courts that separates privileged business activity from unfair competition. We can help insure that your business stays on the right side of that line and to protect you from those businesses that cross the line. Under appropriate circumstances a claim for tortious interference with existing or prospective contractual relations can give rise to claims for punitive damages and the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction to stop the unlawful activity.
 We regularly represent developers, contractors, and design professionals in conjunction with a wide range of construction disputes and home warranty claims. The Pennsylvania legislature has provided contractors and subcontractors with powerful tools to recover funds owed on construction projects, including the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, which provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees and interest at the rate of 1% per month on funds that are improperly withheld. We have also assisted contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, engineers and architects in taking advantage of the mechanic’s lien laws. A mechanic’s lien is a powerful weapon in recovering monies that are owed on a project as the law permits the entry of a lien on real estate prior to any hearing or trial.
Our attorneys have successfully represented clients in recovering damages for violations of the federal antitrust laws, which proscribe any contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. A person injured by virtue of any violation of the anti-trust laws may recover treble damages and attorney’s fees. Such pernicious restraints of trade include horizontal and vertical price fixing and unlawful refusals to deal.
Wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process claims are becoming more common as businesses use litigation for improper purposes, such as attempting to financially harm their competition by through the filing of frivolous claims. Our attorneys know when a litigant has “crossed the line” and is subject to damages for wrongful use of civil proceedings (often referred to in Pennsylvania as a claim under the “Dragonetti Act”). Targets of abuse of process claims and wrongful use of civil proceedings are not only entitled to recover the attorney’s fees and costs that they were forced to incur in defending against the baseless claims, but also damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.
Commercial asset recovery – or “collection cases” – has become a more complex process as debtors have become more sophisticated at shielding their assets. Often the hardest part of asset recovery is not obtaining a judgment against the debtor, but collecting the judgment or recovering the asset. Our attorneys have successfully recovered debts where it appeared that the creditor had run into a dead end. The fact that the debtor claims that it is “judgment proof” or is without assets compels a closer examination of the debtor’s finances. Often the debtor will engage in fraudulent transfers whereby it attempts to shield its assets by transferring assets to other shell entities or family members without adequate consideration with the intent to defraud the creditor. Another common approach taken by debtors is to simply reformulate their existing business under a new name without any real change in ownership, management, or operations. Under these circumstances recovery against the “new” entity is possible under theories of successor liability, alter ego, and “continuation” theories. Another weapon in the arsenal available to creditors is something known as “piercing the corporate veil,” which effectively permits a creditor to disregard the debtor’s corporate format to impose individual liability against the owners of the company. This theory is often successful when the individuals who run the company disregard corporate formalities, commingle business and personal funds, and undercapitalize the company with the knowledge that they will never be able to pay their debts as they become due.
Our attorneys are regularly retained to obtain – and defend against - preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. The law recognizes that there are certain instances in which monetary damages cannot make a business or an individual whole. The courts describe this type of injury as “irreparable harm.” Requests for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders occur in a wide range of factual situations9, but are most frequently seen in the context of disputes between employers and former employees. Employers will often seek temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to restrain their former employees from violating non-compete agreements. Requests for emergency injunctive relief are also commonplace in copyright and trademark infringement cases.
Bad faith cases arise in the insurance context where the insurer denies coverage or fails to properly handle an insured’s claims. We have litigated bad faith cases for individuals in life and disability cases and for businesses where insurers have wrongfully denied coverage.
Closely held corporations provide the setting for lawsuits alleging the oppression of minority shareholders. Minority shareholders in closely held corporations are often treated unfairly by the majority shareholders and find themselves frustrated in realizing the reasonable expectations they had when they invested in the corporation. Minority oppression can come in many forms: dilution of the minority shareholder’s ownership interest, exclusion from the management of the corporation, diversion of assets out of the corporation by the majority shareholders, termination from employment, and other departures from the standards of good faith and fair dealing that a shareholder in a closely held corporation should expect.
Contact Us today about your case!
|
