Civil disputes and civil litigation are the backbone of our practice. We understand that clients are seeking smart, effective strategy, efficient implementation and, most importantly, results. Davison Law represents clients in claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and claims for unfair trade practices in violation of M. G. L. c. 93A. We are frequently counsel in complex shareholder/partnership disputes in family-owned or closely-held businesses in matters relating to the operation and control of the business. We are experienced in advising on, and litigating, matters of corporate governance, including in start-up businesses and ventures. We are also experienced in defending against torts arising in a business context such as: defamation, conspiracy, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Some representative successes include:
- The Business Litigation Session granted our Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss all claims against our client with prejudice where plaintiff alleged that he was the sole owner of corporate shares that had been issued jointly to him and his wife, our client. The Court found that our client had a present joint ownership and interest in the corporate shares and dismissed husband’s claim to sole ownership of the shares. The Court further dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s claim that the irrevocable family trust, created by husband and wife to hold title to certain corporate shares, never came into existence.
- The Business Litigation Session found that our client stated claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against his brother, the former owner of an athletic club and the real estate on which the club operated, following the sale of the premises for over $32 million.
- We intervened in a civil action pending in the Colorado Federal District Court in order to move to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In our Motion to Dismiss, we presented the evidence to the Court that plaintiffs and defendants had colluded to obtain a sham judgment from the Court and, therefore, no Article III case or controversy was presented. The Court dismissed the action, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no ‘case’ or ‘controversy,’ and no adversity of legal interests among plaintiffs and defendants, as required by Article III of the Constitution.
- In a case of first impression in Massachusetts in the area of corporate governance, on summary judgment, the Superior Court found in our client’s favor that the President of a closely-held Massachusetts corporation could not remove an employee/manager from his position absent approval of the Board of Directors, where the Board (and not the President) had appointed the employee to his position.
- Representing a 50% shareholder and Director in a closely-held family business, we defeated the Company President’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to enforce management decisions which were contrary to our client’s votes.
- Following the Superior Court’s denial of professional Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment on our client’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of M. G. L. c. 93A, our client received $12 million and various interests in family-owned limited liability companies in settlement of her claims.
- We obtained the Rule 12(b) dismissal of a Federal District Court action asserting claims of RICO, RICO conspiracy, violations of c. 93A, civil conspiracy and malicious prosecution against our clients.
- In the week before trial and following service of our motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence, we obtained a settlement for our client, a 10% shareholder in a medical practice, in which he received full compensation for the value of his shares, previously denied to him.
- We achieved the successful buyout of our client’s ownership interest in a Massachusetts golf course and club.