Pastore & Dailey attorneys successfully obtained emergency injunctive relief on behalf of a Manhattan-based proprietary trading firm in a dispute with a former C-level executive in New York State Court. After securing the injunctive relief, Pastore & Dailey successfully invoked an employment agreement provision to stay the court case and compel arbitration in AAA. The case settled on favorable terms shortly thereafter.
Pastore & Dailey LLC is pleased to announce another victory in a New York State Court case regarding the employment of a high-level individual in the financial industry. In a recent decision, Pastore & Dailey successfully argued that an employee was entitled to proceed in arbitration against his former employer, as bargained for under his employment agreement. This decision exemplifies Pastore & Dailey’s skill and unyielding desire to seek the best, most efficient, and most beneficial result for our clients.
On behalf of its sophisticated financial services client, Pastore & Dailey LLC recently defeated a Motion to Stay a New York Supreme Court action pending resolution of an ongoing arbitration. In denying the defendants’ motion for a stay, the court agreed with P&D’s arguments that the corporate defendants’ conduct in choosing not to participate in the arbitration, thus creating a complete separation of identity between the defendants in the court case and the respondents in the arbitration, could not be used as an excuse to stop the court proceedings until the arbitration was resolved.
Pastore & Dailey recently defeated an emergency appeal to NYS Appellate Division (1st Dept.) by a client’s competitor in the financial services industry (including a FINRA member firm) on the trial court’s denial of its motion to stay our client’s lawsuit in NYS Supreme Court (New York County) against the competitor and its principals while a related FINRA arbitration was in process. (Our client is suing the competitor and its principals for tortiously interfering with our client’s contracts with its ex-employees, among other things.)
Pastore & Dailey recently brought a successful motion to strike in Connecticut Superior Court against a former employee of a client (a major world-wide insurance company). The Court’s decision included a finding that the former employee failed to articulate facts sufficient to support a claim of a fiduciary duty by an employer to an employee for a long-term incentive plan (“LTIP”).
PROCEDURE – The former employee sued the client over a year ago for further payments pursuant to the LTIP (the employee had already received several years of payments under the LTIP). Pastore & Dailey first sent the former employee’s counsel a Request to Revise the Complaint, as we perceived the pleadings to be legally insufficient as written. Opposing counsel for the former employee objected to the Request to Revise, but the Court overruled all of same, agreeing with Pastore & Dailey that the former employee needed to revise the Complaint per Pastore & Dailey’s Request to Revise.
The former employee’s counsel then revised the Complaint, but Pastore & Dailey filed a Motion to Strike with the court, again alleging that the pleadings in the Complaint were legally insufficient, as revised. The parties had oral argument with the court a few months ago.
RESULT – Just recently, the court issued its decision, striking one of the counts per Pastore & Dailey’s motion, and indicating that another count is likely to fail, if Connecticut state law is found to apply.
In the count that was stricken, the Court stated that a mere “conclusory allegation” that the employer owed the employee a fiduciary duty under the LTIP was insufficient to overcome the Motion to Strike that count in the Complaint.
Regarding the count for an allegation of breach by the employer of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the Court stated such claim would also fail, should the Court ultimately determine that Connecticut law is the applicable law in this case. (The Court stated that the choice of law question was not yet “ripe” at this stage of the proceedings. But both the client and the employee are domiciled in Connecticut.)
Only a breach of contract claim otherwise remains in the Complaint.
Pastore & Dailey recently defeated an emergency motion by a client’s competitor in the financial services industry (including a FINRA member firm) to stay our client’s lawsuit in NYS Supreme Court (New York County) against the competitor and its principals while a related FINRA arbitration was in process. (Our client is suing the competitor and its principals for tortiously interfering with our client’s contracts with its ex-employees, among other things.)
Recently a Connecticut State Court granted the entirety of a Request to Revise filed by Pastore and Dailey in its defense of a major world-wide insurance company, denying all of the plaintiff’s objections to the motion. The claims involve an incentive stock plan.
Pastore & Dailey successfully defended against multiple rounds of dispositive motions seeking the dismissal of a complaint filed in California state court against certain former officers and directors of a publicly traded company, as well as prevailed in motion practice seeking the dismissal of certain of defendants’ counter-claims. The defendants in this action were represented by a prominent national firm, and were alleged to have, among other things, breached their duties owed to the company, and committed corporate waste, during their time as directors and/or officers. Subsequent to prevailing at the dispositive motion stage of the litigation, a favorable settlement was obtained on behalf of the client corporation.
Pastore & Dailey recently prevailed on behalf of Plaintiff after oral arguments against Defendant’s dispositive motions seeking the dismissal of a complaint filed in California state court against certain former directors and officers of a publicly-traded company. The defendants in this action were represented by a prominent nation firm, and are alleged to have, among other things, breached their duties owed to the company, and committed corporate waste, during their time as directors and/or officers.
Pastore & Dailey successfully obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in New York State Court for one of our clients. The client provides financial advisory services, including analysis and consulting related to Residential mortgage-backed securities, other securities, and other complex assets, to some of the largest financial institutions and law firms in the world. This dispute arose when a group of our client’s employees all resigned around the same time and together joined a new, competing venture just formed. The former employees have restrictive covenants in their employment agreements with our client not to solicit our client’s employees or clients, or use or disclose its confidential information and trade secrets. Recognizing the enforceability of those employment agreements, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to protect our client’s confidential information, trade secrets, employees, and client base pending the outcome of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration our firm instituted on behalf of our client.
