Lawyers often get phone calls from prospective clients seeking guidance on various issues – general legal inquiries, asking a variety of general questions about laws, codes, regulations, and statutes, or questions concerning a pending or anticipated litigation. But a brief introductory conversation with a prospective client regarding an issue cannot disqualify the attorney from representing
A Film-Worthy Lesson on Class Certification
A class must satisfy the following prerequisites in order to be certified to proceed in the form of a class action: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy and it must be demonstrated that a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of the controversy (see CPLR 901).
New York County Commercial Division Judge
Three New Rule Amendments Proposed by the Commercial Division Advisory Council
The Commercial Division Advisory Council (the “Advisory Council”) has proposed three new amendments to the Commercial Division Rules: (1) a proposed amendment to Rule 1, which will allow counsel to participate in court conferences remotely, via Skype or other videoconferencing technology; (2) a proposed amendment to Rule 6, which will require proportionally spaced
What the Commercial Division Has Done for Us Lately
As the name and subject matter of this blog would suggest, we here at Farrell Fritz are big fans of the Commercial Division. It’s where we practice. It’s what we know.
After all, we’ve been reporting on decisions coming out the Com Div on this and our other blogs for more than a decade –
Economic Justification for the Win – Defeating a Tortious Interference Claim
Consider this situation: You are a shareholder of a company who is about to enter into a contract with a third party. But you know that this is a bad deal that will negatively impact the company. Your immediate reaction is to stop this deal from materializing because you have a vested interest in the
Summer Day Camp Derivative Headed to Trial
“Sibling relationships are complicated. All family relationships are. Look at Hamlet.” Maurice Saatchi.
A recent decision in Greenhaus v. Gersh out of the Commercial Division, Suffolk County, is yet another example. This time, the business is a summer day camp located on the north shore of Long Island in Huntington, New York. Almost
Shareholders Beware: Serve Pre-Litigation Demands or Be Prepared to Plead Demand Futility with Particularity
In a recent case, Gammel v Immelt (2019 NY Slip Op 32005[U]), shareholders of General Electric Company (GE), brought a derivative shareholder action against the members of GE’s board of directors and various committees charged 
with overseeing GE’s business operations. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action sounding in gross mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty, among
Dismissed: The Tragic, True Story of Direct and Derivative Claims Jumbled Together Beyond Recognition
Much has been written about the pleading requirements unique to shareholder derivative lawsuits. For example, a derivative complaint must allege the plaintiff’s standing as a shareholder at all relevant times. Demand upon the board, or its futility, must also be pled with sufficient particularity. But fundamentally, a complaint may not assert direct claims derivatively,
A Thoughtful Insight into Seeking a Stay of Proceedings
“Should I stay or should I go”, queried the Clash. Litigators are often faced with the same question, albeit in a far different context. Most (but certainly not all!) Commercial Division practitioners try to move litigation with some degree of alacrity. The quicker the litigation proceeds, the swifter the resolution. Clients like quick resolutions.
If you don’t use it, you lose it – don’t risk losing your right to terminate a contract by failing to timely notify your counterparty of material breaches
In a recent decision in Inferno Restaurant & Pizzeria, Inc. v SW Michaels Pizzeria, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 50995(U) (June 13, 2019), the Supreme Court, Albany County, found that where a defendant knew of a plaintiff’s material breaches of a contract and failed to timely notify the plaintiff of these material breaches,