TMR BAYHEAD SECURITIES, LLC plf-res, v. AEGIS TEXAS VENTURE FUND II, LP, ET AL. def-ap

11085N. TMR BAYHEAD SECURITIES, LLC plf-res, v. AEGIS TEXAS VENTURE FUND II, LP, ET AL. def-ap — Ganfer & Shore, LLP, New York (Ira Brad Matetsky of counsel), for ap — Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP, New York (Keara A. Bergin of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered May 30, 2012, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs TMR Bayhead Securities LLC and Todd Roberts's motion to compel defendants (fund entities) to reimburse and advance legal fees and costs incurred on behalf of Roberts in defending against a suit commenced by, inter alia, the fund entities, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

11085N. TMR BAYHEAD SECURITIES, LLC plf-res, v. AEGIS TEXAS VENTURE FUND II, LP, ET AL. def-ap — Ganfer & Shore, LLP, New York (Ira Brad Matetsky of counsel), for ap — Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP, New York (Keara A. Bergin of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered May 30, 2012, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs TMR Bayhead Securities LLC and Todd Roberts’s motion to compel defendants (fund entities) to reimburse and advance legal fees and costs incurred on behalf of Roberts in defending against a suit commenced by, inter alia, the fund entities, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly granted Roberts’ request for advancement of fees. Contrary to the fund entities’ contentions, the requested fees were not excessive or unreasonable, and Roberts’s counsel submitted detailed documentation to substantiate those fees. Roberts’s counsel’s representation that the work done during the relevant time period would not have been any less had Bayhead, wholly owned by Roberts, not been named as a defendant, sufficed for the court to conclude that a portion of legal fees need not be allocated to Bayhead for this time period (Ficus Invs., Inc. v. Private Capital Mgt., LLC, 63 AD3d 611, 612 [1st Dept 2009]). Pursuant to the applicable laws governing the agreements regarding advancement of legal fees, Roberts was entitled to advancement of costs to cover his counterclaims, which largely arise from the same facts as the fund entities’ claims against him in the companion action (see Duthie v. CorSolutions Med., Inc., 2009 WL 1743650, *2-3 [Del Ch June 16, 2009]; Zaman v. Amedeo Holdings, Inc., 2008 WL 2168397, *34-35 [Del Ch 2008]).

TMR BAYHEAD SECURITIES, LLC plf-res, v. AEGIS TEXAS VENTURE FUND II, LP, ET AL. def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal