Fishkin Lucks prevailed today before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.). Following a lengthy hearing, the Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action alleging that our clients, an international financier and its principal, had engaged in fraud and civil conspiracy and breached fiduciary duties in connection with a series of loan transactions they entered into with plaintiff, a publicly traded oilfield service operator. While plaintiff alleged the loan transactions should have been rescinded, which would have resulted in a net $25M loss to our client, we were able to persuade the Court that plaintiff’s claims were barred under the res judicata doctrine given a prior litigation between the parties in London, England and England’s entire controversy doctrine.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (Rockland County) (Walsh, J.). The Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss fraudulent inducement claims brought against our client related to a buy-out agreement entered into in connection with a partnership dissolution. In dismissing the claims without leave to re-plead, the Court agreed that plaintiff “failed to plead any particularized facts demonstrating that [our client] breached a legal duty independent of the parties’ obligations” under the buy-out agreement.
Fishkin Lucks is pleased to be a major sponsor at SoBRO’s 39th Anniversary Gala at New York City’s Grand Hyatt honoring our client and friend Ken Cohen, President of Pantheon Properties, as Developer of the Year. SoBRO, the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation, is a not-for-profit organization that addresses community revitalization in the South Bronx, including through rebuilding infrastructure, building affordable housing and revitalizing neighborhoods to stimulate commercial growth.
Fishkin Lucks LLP is pleased to announce that Kirstin (O’Callaghan) Mannarino has joined the Firm as an associate. Kirstin is a commercial litigator who has handled a wide-variety of business disputes and tort claims for corporations in a number of different industries, including construction, chemical, insurance, financial services, technology, energy and pharmaceutical. Kirstin also has substantial environmental expertise, having served as common counsel to large PRP Groups, prosecuted and defended cost recovery and contribution actions, and negotiated remediation plans with federal and state agencies. Before joining Fishkin Lucks, Kirstin spent her last several years practicing out of the New York and New Jersey offices of Day Pitney and Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge (n/k/a Edwards Wildman).
Kirstin received her J.D. from Boston University School of Law where she served as the Executive Editor of Student Publications on the Annual Review of Banking & Financial Law. She is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey state and federal courts. Kirstin currently serves on the Board of Directors of the New Jersey Women Lawyers Association.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Linares, J.). The Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s patent infringement claims against our client, an international online gaming company, upon our showing that the “alleged infringement activity could not have taken place in the United States” given the location of our client’s servers in Gibraltar, and that our client “did not have sufficient minimum contacts within the District” to support a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Radkoff, J.). The Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss a plaintiff Trust’s action seeking judgment declaring its rights under a certain stranger owned life insurance (“STOLI”) policy, holding that plaintiff’s complaint was barred under the abstention doctrine given an earlier filed action brought in New Jersey State Court to rescind the STOLI policy. In so holding, the Court agreed with the Firm’s argument that “as master of its complaint and the entity whose rights have been placed at risk by Defendants’ (including the Trust’s) fraudulent scheme perpetrated in New Jersey,” our client was entitled to pursue relief in New Jersey and invoke the protections afforded by New Jersey law under the circumstances.”
