Representing 95 investors, who invested over $100 million into now-defunct hedge funds, in an action against the funds’ auditors and administrator, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
Represented a leading apparel company and its majority shareholders in a cash out merger dispute with its former minority shareholder. The minority shareholder filed an action in New York State Supreme Court to rescind the merger, alleging that the apparel company failed to comply with New York case law mandating a legitimate business or corporate purpose for corporate mergers. The Court initially denied the apparel company’s motion to dismiss but granted reargument, recognizing that its original decision did not fully address the business purpose arguments that lay at the core of the dispute. Following reargument, the Court granted the apparel company’s motion to dismiss, acknowledging the merger’s clear legitimate business purpose. This decision holds great significance for the legal community as there are very few precedents under New York law addressing the conditions under which a merger can be rescinded, particularly for lack of a legitimate business purpose. The case is Alan Ades v. Van Dale Industries, Inc. et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
Achieved a complete victory on behalf of its clients Inokim, an Israeli company that manufactures electric scooters, and Best Buy against certain Inokim shareholders who sued both companies for breaches of a licensing agreement and tortious interference arising from the distribution of Inokim electric scooters. The New York Supreme Court granted motions to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims on each of the alternative grounds offered—including improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction over our Israeli clients and lack of standing.
Herrick represented an AI company serving the financial services sector and a senior executive in a trade secret dispute. In this matter, the executive’s former employer initiative a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court seeking a TRO and other injunctive relief which, after Herrick’s opposition, the Court denied. The former employer dismissed the lawsuit shortly thereafter. Herrick subsequently sued the former employer in arbitration for a declaratory judgment exonerating our clients—both the company and the executive. We simultaneously started a new lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against the former employer for fraud and tortious interference against our clients. A settlement was quickly negotiated on terms very favorable for our client, including the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs for our client.
Herrick achieved a victory on behalf of our clients, an insurance company and related entities, their principals and high-profile real estate investors, in a matter involving insurance coverage issues for a company that manages hundreds of apartment buildings in New York City. The court dismissed every counterclaim against our clients, the individual and corporate counterclaim defendants, based on the defendant’s failure to state legally sufficient causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, tortious interference with business relations, civil conspiracy and accounting.
