GIFTWARE COMPANY V. BIG FOUR ACCOUNTING FIRM
Alex represented Plaintiff in a five week jury trial where Plaintiff claimed that the Big Four Accounting Firm knew about and failed to disclose material accounting irregularities in connection with a merger transaction, causing the surviving company to fail post-merger. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff for $32.8 million.
COMPANY OWNER V. COMPANY OWNER
Alex proved at trial that his business-owner client was fraudulently induced by a co-owner to personally guarantee a multi-million dollar corporate line of credit in connection with business’s bankruptcy and dissolution. Over $3 million in fraud and punitive damages were awarded.
AUTOMOBILE DEALER V. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER
Alex represented an automobile manufacturer in a two-month jury trial in downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiff, a car dealer, made fraud, breach of contract, business interference and defamation claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the manufacturer that was affirmed on appeal.
HOMEMAKER V. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER
Homemaker and wife of executive was rendered a quadriplegic in a rollover crash. She claimed that the vehicle was unstable and not crashworthy. Alex represented the manufacturer from the inception of the case.The case went to trial - the first such case for this manufacturer - and lasted an entire summer. Plaintiff asked for approximately $50 million in damages. The jury returned a defense verdict for the manufacturer.
FOOTBALL COACH V. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER
Alex’s first experience with a complex civil trial came when he was put on the trial team of a product liability case involving a high school football coach who was paralyzed in a rollover crash. The coach alleged the vehicle was unstable and failed to protect him in the crash. The case went to trial in Los Angeles County at its Central Civil West Division nicknamed “the bank.” After several weeks the jury returned a defense verdict for the manufacturer.
Alex represented a publicly held corporation against its national audit firm, a well-known credit card company and a local bank following the discovery of multi-million dollar embezzlement by a high-ranking officer of the corporation. The company alleged that the auditors were negligent in connection with their failure to detect the embezzlement; that the credit card company knew about the embezzlement and aided and abetted the officer’s fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and a local bank acted in “bad faith” in violation of that jurisdiction’s Uniform Fiduciaries Act.
SHAREHOLDER V. CORPORATION, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER
Client, a shareholder of a corporation, was systematically and unknowingly diluted from a 10% ownership interest down to less than 1%. The dilution of Client’s interest surfaced when a cash offer of approximately $15 million was made for the purchase of all of the corporation’s shares. Client filed suit alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence and violations of the Corporation Code. A favorable confidential settlement wad reached for client.
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES COMPANY V. ENTREPRENEUR
Plaintiff claimed that Client improperly accessed Plaintiff’s computer system and wrongfully copied customer data and Plaintiff’s proprietary software platform. Plaintiff alleged claims under 18 U.S.C. §1030, California Penal Code § 502, breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Client denied any wrongdoing and asserted that it was authorized to access the Client’s computer system, the customer data belonged to it (not Plaintiff) and that Client developed its own unique proprietary software platform at significant expense. Client further asked for a finding that Plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation claim was brought in “bad faith” order to damage Plaintiff’s reputation in the industry and prevent it from lawfully competing with Plaintiff in the MMS and SMS content delivery space. Following binding arbitration, client was dismissed without any payment.
Conti Law obtained a $2.45 million settlement for two elderly beneficiaries of a trust. The beneficiaries' younger siblings were co-trustees, and they refused to act to liquidate the trust and distribute the proceeds to their older siblings. Plaintiffs believed that their younger siblings were waiting for them to die in order to take all of the trust assets for themselves. Six months after filing a petition to remove the co-trustees for breech of fiduciary duty, and after deposing the co-trustees for several days, the matter settled.
ENTREPRENEURS V. DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
Alex represented two entrepreneurs in their malicious prosecution case against a multi-billion dollar defense contractor. In the underlying case the defense contractor sued the entrepreneurs alleging they had misappropriated the defense contractor’s trade secrets when starting their new company. As a result of the claim, the new venture did not get off the ground. The trial court found that the defense contractor brought the misappropriation claim in “bad faith” in order to prevent the entrepreneurs from engaging in lawful competition with the defense contractor. The entrepreneurs subsequently sued the defense contractor alleging that it filed the underlying lawsuit for an improper purpose, i.e., to destroy the entrepreneurs’ new venture. During the case the entrepreneurs filed briefs asking the Court to throw out the corporation’s defenses that it acted in “good faith” and they were “relying on the advice of counsel” when they sued the entrepreneurs. The case settled shortly thereafter and the defense contractor reported in its public filings that the case settled for $39 million.
RESTAURANT GROUP V. NATIONAL ACCOUNTING FIRM
Alex represented the principal of a large restaurant group which claimed that they were fraudulently induced by a national accounting firm to enter into a long-term contract to outsource the group’s extensive accounting operations. After signing the contract and eliminating the in-house accounting department, the Defendant was unable to provide the promised accounting services. Plaintiff discovered that, unknown to it, the majority of its accounting operations actually had been outsourced to a subcontractor in Mumbai, India. Plaintiff sued for fraud, breach of contract and negligence. After extensive litigation resulting in the production of damaging internal e-mail communications relating to Plaintiff’s outsourcing contract and the subsequent depositions of numerous accountants, the case resolved for a confidential sum.
TECHNOLOGY COMPANY V. BIG FOUR ACCOUNTING FIRM
Alex represented a publicly traded technology company against its auditors for failing to detect and report the backdating of stock options. After the production of the audit work papers, the case was settled. The company reported in its public filings that the case settled for $16 million.
Alex represented the daughter of a deceased father who allegedly did not complete an application for a $5 million life insurance policy, naming his ex-wife and former business partner as the beneficiary, before his unexpected death. The father’s ex-wife sued his estate for $5 million in damages. After trial, the case resolved with a substantial payment to the surviving daughter.
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. MEDICAL/SPA CORPORATION AND SOLE SHAREHOLDER
Alex represented a construction company that provided construction services to a startup medical/spa corporation. The Defendant corporation refused to pay the contractor claiming it was insolvent while distributing income to the individual owner and sole shareholder. Plaintiff sued to hold the shareholder of the corporation personally responsible for the corporation’s obligation. After filing a brief affirmatively showing that the individual shareholder was the “alter ego” of the corporation, and therefore personally liable for the corporation’s debt to the construction company, the case settled for a confidential sum.