Fishkin Lucks has been selected again 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 obtained complete dismissal of all seven claims asserted against its clients in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division - Second Department. The plaintiff, a former advisor to the firm’s clients, alleged that he had been promised ownership of valuable Nassau County real estate, asserted multiple contract, quasi-contract, and equitable theories to enforce that alleged promise, and sought additional damages for purportedly defamatory statements about his management of a trust.
On appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss, the Appellate Division reversed and ordered dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. The Court held that the plaintiff’s contract-based and related equitable claims were barred by the statute of frauds and by the terms of written leases, rejected his promissory estoppel and constructive trust theories, and ruled that the challenged statements were nonactionable opinions rather than false statements of fact.
Following the Appellate Division’s ruling, Fishkin Lucks secured a further win for its clients in the trial court at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County - Commercial Division. Acknowledging that the Appellate Division had already dismissed the complaint in its entirety, the trial court lifted a previously issued preliminary injunction that had been staying the client’s pending summary holdover proceeding concerning the same Nassau County property against the plaintiff. The court also set the defendants’ claim for damages against the plaintiff’s $500,000injunction bond for a hearing.
Fishkin Lucks secured complete dismissal of claims against its client, a privately-held energy company, by a former executive seeking more than $7 million in fees and expenses incurred in two prior arbitrations between the parties. The claimant brought his claims in a Delaware arbitration before a three-member panel of the American Arbitration Association, asserting that he was entitled to reimbursement of previously incurred legal fees and expenses under theories of contractual indemnification and “bad-faith fee-shifting.” After obtaining leave to file a motion to dismiss, the Firm sought dismissal on five independent grounds, including that (i) the indemnification provision in the parties’ operating agreement did not authorize first-party fee-shifting, (ii) bad-faith fee-shifting cannot be asserted as an independent cause of action in a standalone proceeding, and (iii) the claimant’s claims were barred by a three-year statute of limitations. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the panel issued a written opinion and award dismissing the claims with prejudice, finding that the Firm’s arguments justified complete dismissal of claimant’s claims.
The Firm won a motion to dismiss in New York Supreme Court, Kings County, obtaining the dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims against its client, a life insurance company. Plaintiff sued the Firm’s client for fraud, alleging that it failed to detect that plaintiff’s relative submitted a forged document removing plaintiff as a beneficiary of certain annuities. The Firm argued that, under New York law, failing to detect a fraud committed by another person does not amount to active participation in the fraud and that plaintiff failed adequately to allege any warning signs that should have put the Firm’s client on notice of the fraud alleged. The Court adopted the Firm’s arguments and dismissed in plaintiff’s claims against the Firm’s client in full.
The Firm obtained summary judgment in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of its client, a large privately-held medical device company. One of the company’s largest shareholders had agreed to purchase the shares of another shareholder, which triggered a dispute concerning the scope of contractual tag-along rights and a right of first refusal provided by the company’s shareholder agreement. The selling shareholder advanced an interpretation of the shareholder agreement that would have permitted tag-along shareholders to sell classes and series of shares that differed from the single class of common stock sold during the underlying transaction and that would have functionally prevented the company and other shareholders from exercising valid rights of first refusal over those tag-along sales.
The shareholder commenced litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a declaratory judgment as to both issues and moved for expedited summary judgment. The Firm opposed the motion and cross-moved, arguing that shareholder agreement did not provide cross-class or cross-series tag-along rights and that each tag-along transaction was subject to company and shareholder rights of first refusal. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the court adopted the Firm’s position on both issues, holding that tag-along shareholders could sell only the class of shares that matched the shareholder’s original purchase and that the company and other shareholders could exercise a right of first refusal over those tag-along sales.
The Firm prevailed on its motion to dismiss in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, on behalf of its client, a life insurance company. Plaintiff, a purported beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by the Firm’s client, asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims in his individual capacity and on behalf of the policyholder, on the alleged basis that the Firm’s client improperly distributed insurance proceeds to plaintiff’s relative, instead of plaintiff. The Court accepted in full the Firm’s argument that, as a matter of New York law, life insurers do not owe fiduciary duties to policyholders or beneficiaries. Thus, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against the Firm’s client, along with a crossclaim asserted by Plaintiff’s relative.
