The Firm won a motion for partial dismissal in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, dismissing all claims brought under hardware purchase orders by a Taiwanese technology company against the Firm’s client, a publicly traded provider of cross-border payment and digital financial services. Plaintiff sought more than $8 million in damages alleging that the Firm’s client had breached agreements to purchase hardware for point-of-sale terminals and software to operate the terminals. The Firm argued that the hardware-based claims, which comprised eleven of the thirteen counts of Plaintiffs’ complaint and accounted for approximately $7.5 million of Plaintiff’s alleged damages, failed because they were premised on alleged breaches of purchase orders to which the Firm’s client was not a party and a supply agreement that contained a mandatory forum selection clause requiring that the claims be litigated in New York. The District Court agreed with the Firm’s arguments and dismissed Plaintiff’s hardware-based claims based on the mandatory forum selection clause requiring that they be litigated in New York.
Fishkin Lucks secured an award of more than $800,000 for its client, an AI-powered liquidity provider, in a commercial arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in New York. The arbitration arose from an agreement through which the Firm’s client extended capital to a company that sells and distributes beauty, fitness, and health products, in exchange for certain contractually defined repayment obligations. A third party then acquired a majority of the beauty company’s membership interests and agreed to assume all of the beauty company’s liabilities, including its obligations to the Firm’s client. The acquiring company immediately defaulted by failing to make contractually required payments, and we commenced arbitration against the beauty company, the acquiring company, and the acquiring company’s principal. After discovery, the Firm moved for summary disposition, arguing that (i) the beauty company had breached the agreement by failing to make required payments and by selling a majority of its equity to the acquiring company in violation of a provision prohibiting a sale, (ii) the acquiring company assumed the obligations of the beauty company, and (iii) the acquiring company’s principal had tortiously interfered with the underlying agreement by preventing payment and by acquiring the beauty company’s equity, despite knowing it was prohibited under our client’s agreement with the beauty company. The arbitrator agreed and adopted the Firm’s arguments, finding all three respondents jointly and severally liable for the full contractual obligation, along with attorneys’ fees and interest.
Fishkin Lucks has been selected by Chambers and Partners as a top litigation boutique in New York City. This recognition is a testament to the Firm’s sterling reputation among its clients and peers for providing exceptional litigation services.
Chambers and Partners is globally recognized for its independent and objective assessments of top legal talent. Chambers selected the Firm for its New York Spotlight Guide for General Commercial Litigation based on independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the Firm’s experience, expertise, and caliber of talent.
Fishkin Lucks secured complete dismissal of claims asserted against its client, a privately-held energy company, by its former Chief Executive Officer concerning post-termination obligations allegedly required by his employment agreement. The claims, brought in arbitration before a three-member panel of the American Arbitration Association, concerned the former executive’s contractual right to post-employment insurance coverage. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, both sides filed motions for summary disposition. After oral argument, the arbitration panel issued an order adopting the Firm’s arguments and finding that the Firm's client had satisfied its contractual obligations to the claimant.
The Firm prevailed on a motion to dismiss a complaint against its client, a leading wood stain manufacturer, based on plaintiff's misjoinder in one litigation of several unrelated claims. Specifically, the plaintiff had alleged that a wood stain manufactured by the Firm's client had caused four separate fires, in four separate homes across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and sought to bring claims regarding all of those fires within a single lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The Firm moved to dismiss on the basis that these claims presented few common questions of fact and law, and beyond that, combining them would be unduly prejudicial to the Firm’s client. The Court agreed and ordered that the case be dismissed
After extensive briefing and oral argument in a JAMS arbitration in California, the Firm secured a Final Award in favor of its client, a leading provider of solar services nationwide, dismissing with prejudice claims that the client had misrepresented and breached allegedly unconscionable terms of a solar lease agreement. The arbitrator found that the terms of the agreement were lawful and had not been breached, and that to the extent the claimant had misunderstood its rights under the agreement, “it was not based on any representations or omissions by [the client].”
