Tom Ajamie Appears on MSNBC’s Velshi and Rule

Houston, TX (Law Firm Newswire) May 17, 2019 – In a spirited discussion on MSNBC’s Velshi & Ruhle program on May 15, 2019, Tom Ajamie discussed how President Trump’s tweets drive the financial markets and the potential legal jeopardy for Trump and people in his inner circle.

“Look, he can move markets,” said Ajamie. “He is the most powerful man in the world, and everyone listens to how he speaks,” he said.

Tom went on to say that the president does have some immunity, but also questioned the extent to which family members and business associates may be implicated for insider trading based on confidential information that may have been passed to them in discussions with the president.

While the President’s tweets are not like those of a CEO who is bound by strict disclosure rules, Tom also referred to similar tweets by Trump in 2018 regarding Boeing and Lockheed Martin which impacted the share price of those companies, albeit in the short-term.

Whether any evidence of wrongdoing will emerge remains to be seen. Like many others, however, Tom expressed his concerns over the President’s indiscreet tweets. Moreover, Tom is widely recognized for his expertise in high-profile securities fraud cases, having recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors in securities class action litigation.

You can watch Tom’s appearance on MSNBC’s Velshi & Ruhle program here.

About the Firm
Ajamie LLP is a unique, boutique litigation law firm with a proven track record of large recoveries for victims of financial fraud at trials and arbitrations as well as a long history of defending corporations in complex commercial litigation. The firm is also widely recognized for providing cross-border representation in complex business litigation matters and has the skills and resources to represent clients worldwide. For more information, contact Debbie Molloy, Manager of Research and Communications, dmolloy@ajamie.com.

Contact:

Ajamie LLP

NEW YORK
460 Park Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022
P: 713.860.1600
F: 713.860.1699

HOUSTON
Pennzoil Place–South Tower
711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
Houston, TX 77002
P: 713.860.1600
F: 713.860.1699

Texas Law Firm Hit With Overbilling Lawsuit

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) May 6, 2019 – A Federal lawsuit was recently filed against Morrison & Foerster by one of its clients that alleged the firm engaged in “egregious” overbilling, among other things. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Firestar Diamond International and its owner, jewelry designer Nirav Modi, Synergies Corporation, AVD Trading and Firestar Group LLC. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and alleges breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud, breach of contract and theft.

The lawsuit alleges that Morrison & Foerster was initially hired to sell various companies and their assets in order to dismantle the companies. The lawsuit stated that the firm “expended an exorbitant and excessive amount of time, primarily on matters that had little to do with winding down the entities. In the course of two months, [the firm] had 34 different timekeepers bill 669 hours at a cost of $484,321.39.” Thereafter, when the final bill was presented to the plaintiffs, the firm’s services were terminated. However, after termination, Morrison & Foerster then transferred $53,000 of the plaintiff’s assets held in Morrison & Foerster’s trust account to itself, without notifying the plaintiffs with an explanation of the transfer.

The plaintiffs allege that Morrison & Foerster focused on minor issues in order to bill the plaintiffs more, instead of winding down the various companies and selling assets. Also, the plaintiffs allege that the law firm failed to make $17 million in bankruptcy claims that was spotted by the plaintiffs’ new lawyers. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the law firm unilaterally paid its exorbitant fees from money obtained by the sale of plaintiffs’ assets, something that was never agreed upon by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have alleged actual damages of more than $1.5 million, plus punitive damages, attorneys fees and fee disgorgement. In a comment on the decision, Gregory D. Jordan, a business litigation attorney with the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan in Austin, Texas, who is not involved with the case, stated that, “Law firms must be very careful with client’s money kept in the firm’s trust accounts. Frequent and clear communication between the law firm and the client about expectations and actions is the best practice to prevent these types of lawsuits.”

Bona Law Files Federal Antitrust Lawsuit for Thermal Pipe Shields Against Johns Manville for Monopolization, Disparagement in Calsil Insulation Market

Bona Law

La Jolla, CA (Law Firm Newswire) April 1, 2019 – Thermal Pipe Shields, an innovator in the pipe insulation industry, recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against the dominant supplier, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK) company Johns Manville Corporation.

Before Thermal Pipe Shields entered the market, Johns Manville had the market to itself. In independent tests, Thermal Pipe Shields’ product met or exceeded the industry standard and outperformed Johns Manville’s product in several ways and at a lower cost. But Thermal Pipe Shields was forced to file an antitrust lawsuit because Johns Manville, which controls 98% of the market, resorted to disparagement and threats to Thermal Pipe Shields’ customers in an effort to maintain its monopoly.

Washington state-based Chase Manufacturing, Inc., which does business as Thermal Pipe Shields, sued industry behemoth Johns Manville Corporation and its subsidiary, Industrial Insulation Group, LLC, in federal district court in Denver, Colorado, where Johns Manville is headquartered. The complaint alleges claims for monopolization and tying under Sherman Act Section 2, as well as claims for violations of the federal Lanham Act false advertising law, and state law claims for trade disparagement and tortious interference with contract.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the market for an insulation product called “calsil,” which is an insulation that is used for piping, tanks, and other industrial applications involving equipment that operates at temperatures up to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. Because of its unique physical properties and uses, calsil is a distinct product market with no close substitutes.

Johns Manville dominates the calsil market.

According to the complaint, when Thermal Pipe Shields first decided to enter the calsil market, “Johns Manville immediately tried to disrupt and destroy Thermal Pipe Shields’ potential entry and its attempt to break the Johns Manville monopoly.” First, Johns Manville threatened a Thermal Pipe Shield’s officer, falsely accusing him of stealing confidential information and demanding that Thermal Pipe Shields not solicit any Johns Manville customers. Thermal Pipe Shields rejected this illegal invitation to not compete.

With its threats rebuffed, the complaint alleges that Johns Manville moved onto a series of more malicious attempts to prevent Thermal Pipe Shields from breaking into the market: First, it disparaged Thermal Pipe Shields to its customers. Then, Johns Manville leveraged its dominance in other product markets, threatening to cut off customers that were considering the new calsil competitor. Thermal Pipe Shields alleges that Johns Manville executives told its customers that if they purchased the competing product, Johns Manville would cut them off from certain essential products. In one instance, the executives told a customer that “We know you have been buying from Thermal Pipe Shields because we track their import records” before threatening to cut them off from other Manville products.

“This case shows our commitment to breaking the calsil monopoly in North America by introducing meaningful competition into this under-serviced and under-utilized market to our customers,” said David Shong of Thermal Pipe Shields after the lawsuit was filed.

The case is Chase Manufacturing Inc. d/b/a Thermal Pipe Shields v. Johns Manville Corporation and Industrial Insulation Group, LLC, No. 19-cv-00872 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Thermal Pipe Shields is represented by Bona Law PC in San Diego and New York, and Klenda, Gessler & Blue, LLC in Denver.

About Bona Law PC

Bona Law PC is an antitrust boutique law firm with offices in San Diego and New York that represents clients for litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), antitrust counseling, and mergers.

Contact:
Jarod Bona
Bona Law PC
4275 Executive Square, Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
858-964-4589
Jarod.bona@bonalawpc.com
www.businessjustice.com
www.TheAntitrustAttorney.com

More from this law firm

Company’s Lawsuit to Censure Online Reviews Dismissed

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) March 6, 2019 – On January 25, 2019, the Texas Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Glassdoor, Inc. v. Andra Group, LP where the issue was what evidentiary standard is required for the unmasking of negative and possibly defamatory reviews about businesses in online forums and social media.

Glassdoor is a company that operates a jobs and recruiting website where people can post reviews of their current or former employers. The posts can be done anonymously and Glassdoor has no role in drafting or editing the posts. Andra Group, LLP. is a clothing retailer based in Dallas, Texas. In 2014 and 2015, various people posted ten negative reviews on Glassdoor’s website claiming to be current or former employees. Some of the reviews stated that Andra engaged in illegal hiring practices, violated labor laws, and engaged in racial and sexual orientation harassment, among other alleged claims.

Andra filed a petition to take pre-suit depositions of Glassdoor regarding posts and what it thought was defamatory and business disparagement claims. Glassdoor filed a motion to dismiss Andra’s petition for pre-suit discovery on First Amendment grounds. The trial court denied Glassdoor’s motion and allowed the depositions, but also limited what posts Andra could ask questions about. Glassdoor appealed the trial court’s order to the Texas Court of Appeals, but the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Thus, Glassdoor appealed the case to the Texas Supreme Court.

Texas Supreme Court Ruling

As in many cases on appeal, the Court first looks to determine if the case is ripe for a decision on the merits versus some other issue where it can dismiss the matter without deciding the issue that was originally appealed. In the present case, the Court first addressed whether, given the time that has gone by, Andra’s initial petition for pre-lawsuit discovery was moot due to the statute of limitations. The Court ultimately held that the matter was moot and ruled in favor of Glassdoor.

In Texas, there is a one year statute of limitations for defamation and a two year statute of limitations for business disparagement lawsuits. The Court reasoned that since more than two years have passed and Andra has still not filed a lawsuit against anyone, but merely a petition for pre-lawsuit discovery, the statute of limitations has run out; thus barring Andra from filing suit. Andra argued that it did not know the names of the people who posted on Glassdoor so a lawsuit could not be filed. But the Court suggested that a lawsuit still could have been filed using “Doe” as the defendant(s) and proceeding with discovery at that point. The Court overruled the Court of Appeals and dismissed Andra’s petition.

In a comment on the decision, Gregory D. Jordan, a business litigation attorney with the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan in Austin, Texas stated that, “clear legal processes for obtaining the identity of authors of defamatory posts are critical for businesses that value their online reputation. At some point, the Texas Supreme Court will likely need to set clear standards on this issue.”

The case is Glassdoor v. Andra Group LP, No. 17-0463.

Enterprise Counsel Group Announces Major Decision in Delaware Court of Chancery in Case Brought by Applied Energetics, Inc.

Enterprise Counsel Group

Irvine, CA (Law Firm Newswire) February 27, 2019 – Enterprise Counsel Group, ALC (ECG), a leading business trial, appellate and corporate law firm, announces a major decision in the Delaware Court of Chancery in a case brought by Applied Energetics, Inc., an Arizona-based energy technology company, against its former Principal Executive Officer, George Farley.

In a 40-page decision, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order preliminarily enjoining the transfer, sale or otherwise disposal of 25 million shares of Applied Energetics stock, issued to that company’s former sole Director and Principal Executive Officer, George Farley. In so doing, the Court found Applied Energetics, Inc., a military contractor with market capitalization exceeding $1 billion during its peak in the mid-2000s, with 40 patents on Ultra-Short Pulse (“USP”) Lasers, Laser Guided Energy (“LGE”) and Direct Discharge Electrical Products both military and commercial applications, met “its considerable burden,” demonstrating it was likely to win its lawsuit against Farley and his family-owned company, AnneMarieCo.

Specifically, after reviewing evidence and expert testimony presented by Applied Energetics’ and Farley’s lawyers, the Court found it was “reasonably probable” Farley had arranged for the shares to be unlawfully issued, Farley had breached his duty of loyalty to Applied Energetics, Farley was unlikely to prove the stock issuance was procedurally or substantively “fair” to Applied Energetics, and Farley had fraudulently transferred 20 million of the shares to his wife and six children through AnneMarieCo.

Finally, the Court ruled because Farley and AnneMarieCo’s 25 million shares represented one-eighth of Applied Energetics’ outstanding ownership, the injunction was necessary to protect Applied Energetics’ capital structure, the company’s ability to attract new investors, ability to raise new capital, and ability to continue deployment of its plans, now underway, to revitalize its defense contracts, as well as the ability to expand its technology to meet the demands of other markets, including clean energy and law enforcement.

According to Applied Energetics’ lead attorney, Benjamin P. Pugh, “We are pleased the Delaware court recognized the strength of our case against Mr. Farley. We look forward to a successful conclusion to the litigation.”

Benjamin P. Pugh is a litigation partner at Enterprise Counsel Group, ALC (https://www.ecg.law/), an Irvine, California-based business trial, appellate and corporate law firm, with expertise in aggressive courtroom and boardroom representation for a broad spectrum of successful businesses in California, Colorado, Nevada, and across the US.

Freiberger Haber LLP Partner, Jonathan Freiberger, Quoted in New York Post

Melville, NY (Law Firm Newswire) January 30, 2019 – Jonathan H. Freiberger, a member of the law firm of Freiberger Haber LLP, was recently quoted in the New York Post in an article about franchising issues related to the Bareburger hamburger chain. The link to the article can be found here.

Located in New York City and Melville, Long Island, Freiberger Haber LLP is dedicated to representing corporations, small businesses, partnerships and individuals involved in a broad range of complex business, construction and commercial litigation matters. The firm combines the sophistication and counsel of a large national law firm with the economy, flexibility, commitment and personal attention of a small firm.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2019 Freiberger Haber LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Freiberger Haber LLP, 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 417, Melville, New York 11747, (631) 282-8985. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact:

Jonathan H. Freiberger, Esq.
Freiberger Haber LLP
Melville Office (Main Office)
425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 417
Melville, N.Y. 11747
Tel: (631) 282-8985 (main)
Tel: (631) 282-8983 (direct)

New York Office
708 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10017
Tel: (212) 209-1005
Fax: (212) 209-7101
Email: info@fhnylaw.com