Injunctive Relief Freezing Defendant's Assets Requires More Than Suspicion: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Scott Mollen discusses "Conlon Holdings LLC v. Chanos & Company" which illustrates that "courts are reluctant to grant prejudgment injunctions based on mere allegations by a claimant that a defendant or respondent intends to dissipate assets."
September 03, 2024 at 11:42 AM
13 minute read
Contractual DisputesBreach of Contract—Breach of Fiduciary Duties—Injunction in Aid of Arbitration Denied—Motion To Enjoin Transfer of Proceeds From Sale of Miami Home Denied—Motion for Appointment of Receiver Denied—Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate by "Clear and Convincing Evidence That There is a Danger of Irreparable Loss and Damage" or That Assets Were Being "Diverted or Wasted"—Petitioners Claimed That Respondents Will "Abscond, With Monies" Absent Judicial Relief and Render "Any Relief From a Successful Arbitration as Ineffectual"—Court Was "Unpersuaded" That Petitioners Were Likely To Prevail on the Merits in Their Arbitration—Failure To Establish Irreparable Injury and To Demonstrate a Balance of Equities in Petitioners' Favor—Promissory Estoppel Claim Denied
This decision arises from petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining respondents from "transferring the proceeds of the sale of the property located at … Miami Beach, Florida (Miami residence)," removing a general partner from a limited partnership, barring the general partner from holding that position in the future absent agreement by a "majority of disinterested partners" and for appointment of a temporary receiver "until such time that the non– interested partners vote to appoint a new general partner."
The petitioners sought injunctive relief to aid a pending arbitration, "in which petitioners … seek recovery from respondents … for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims." The petitioners claimed that the respondents will "abscond with monies" absent injunctive relief and that would "render any relief from a successful arbitration as ineffectual."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Alleging $23 Million Contract Breach Against Biogen Moves Forward
Illusory Contract; Eviction Based on Illegal Use of Premises: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Splitting the (Painting of the) Baby: The Issue of Fine Art in Prenups and Divorces
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Who Should Pay? Insurer Wants No Part of $30M Sexual Abuse Settlement
- 2Passenger Sues Frontier Airlines for Burns Sustained From In-Flight Beverage
- 3Who Are Trump's Potential Candidates for Attorney General?
- 4Drugmaker Wins $70.5M After Fed Judge Says Generic Sales Were Blocked
- 5Out of Thin Scienter: Protecting Confidential Information in Light of ‘NVIDIA v. Ohman’
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250