Maryland Business Litigation Lawyer BlogMarketing entrepreneurs’ greatest strengths are their creativity and vision. It is this vision that drives many to take the leap to start their own agency/consultancy or join a start-up venture to market an exciting new product. Unfortunately, most marketers are not well-versed in the intricate legal issues involved with starting a business. This can lead to a variety of problems, especially as the venture begins to become successful. A common misconception is that good legal advice is often too expensive for the early stages of a business venture. This is not the case – provided the right counsel is selected. To ensure the success of any new venture, marketers should take steps to avoid the following common pitfalls:
Published on:
Securities Litigation Update: Cyan V. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
In the midst of the Great Depression, Congress enacted two laws to shore up practices that were considered to have led in part to the Market Crash of 1929: the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), which governs initial securities offerings; and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), which governs all subsequent trading. The 1933 Act permits both state and federal courts to hear claims brought under that Act, and bars defendants from removing such claims to federal court. The 1934 Act, however, grants federal court exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims brought under that Act.
Published on:
Silverman Thompson’s Ned Parent Publishes Article on Undue Influence in MSBA Bar Bulletin
Ned Parent, a member of Silverman Thompson’s Business Litigation Group, published an article in the September 2017 issue of the Maryland State Bar Association’s “Bar Bulletin” publication. Mr. Parent’s article discussed the “undue influence” standard used in Caveat proceedings (the formal term used for proceedings challenging the validity of a Will). Specifically, the article discussed the challenges in successfully proving undue influence in such proceedings, and suggested possible solutions to address those challenges.
Published on:
Waste Fraud and Abuse Part 1, What It Is and Who Is Concerned
Concern regarding “waste, fraud and abuse” in government spending is everywhere these days, it seems. Even in 2017, it is a solidly bi-partisan concern. A quick internet search reveals that think tanks from the progressive Center for American Progress to the libertarian Cato Institute have published on the topic, and politicians as ideologically diverse as Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Az.) host pages on the official House of Representatives domain, house.gov, addressing wasteful or fraudulent government spending.
Published on:
Settlement of Dispute Over Non-Compete Agreement
Omni Imaging, LLC (“Omni”), a Maryland limited liability company, filed its lawsuit against our clients, Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc. (“Blue Ridge”) and Richard A. Wilson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on or about October 12, 2016, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Omni is an LLC in the business of selling and maintaining x-ray facilities and radiology products, accessories, supplies and services in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Mr. Wilson was formerly employed by Omni prior to joining Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc. Blue Ridge is a North Carolina corporation and a national supplier of x-ray imaging equipment, service and supplies. Omni sued our clients over a dispute concerning a non-compete agreement signed by Mr. Wilson prior to leaving his employ with Omni. STSW was able to defend Blue Ridge and Mr. Wilson and reach a fair and reasonable settlement with the assistance of the Honorable Beth P. Gesner, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Published on:
Federal Court Dismisses ADA Complaint
Businesses are obliged to ensure that their facilities comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. But can anyone who believes he has found a violation somewhere sue to remedy it? The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently considered what types of plaintiffs may initiate such litigation, and excluded out-of-state persons that merely “test” faraway properties for ADA compliance.
Published on:
Apple v. DOJ/FBI – Is Justice Scalia Rolling Over in His Grave?
Long a consistent and ardent judicial champion of the constitutional protections afforded citizens under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, one cannot help but wonder how Justice Scalia would have viewed the showdown between Apple and the Department of Justice.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Spoliation – The oft mispronounced Rule of Evidence that Every Business Person Needs to Know
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued an opinion this week that serves as a reminder that a party’s simple failure to preserve evidence can sometimes snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The case (and link) is Cumberland Insurance Group v. Delmarva Power.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Appellate Courts Clarify ADR Procedure
It’s no secret that the Court of Special Appeals has been increasingly overwhelmed with cases, nor is it a secret that the Court would like to see a lot of these cases resolved or otherwise cleaned up before having to spend time on them. Those concerns led to the creation of the Court’s ADR Division and accompanying procedures for steering the parties toward settlement or streamlining of the appellate process. After trying those out for a while, however, the Maryland Courts’ Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure identified some kinks, inefficiencies, and redundancies in the overall system, and proposed some related rules changes that were adopted by the Court of Appeals this month.
Continue reading →
Published on:
COSA Clarifies Shenker Exception
In its 2009 decision in Shenker v. Laureate Educ., Inc., 411 Md. 317, the Court of Appeals of Maryland inserted a caveat in the premise that shareholder lawsuits against corporate directors must be pursued as a derivative action on behalf of the corporation itself. By declaring that a corporation’s impending sale gave rise to common-law duties by directors that could be enforced directly by shareholders, the high court outlined an exception that risked swallowing the rule. Last month, however, the Court of Special Appeals gave a more thorough explanation about when Shenker applies – and, as to be expected, it’s not as broad as disgruntled shareholders might hope.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Got Your Mind On Your Money? Limits on Appeal Bonds
Have you obtained a judgment for recovery of money? Lucky you! Is that judgment unsecured? Ouch.
Well, at least you have some protection should your opponent decide to appeal: Under the Maryland Rules (and unless the parties agree otherwise), the appellant has to file a supersedeas bond covering the whole amount of the judgment that remains unsatisfied, plus interest. Of course, the court can always reduce the bond amount, but it can still be a pretty big deterrent to weak or frivolous appeals that just delay payment and increase the chance that some other creditor will snatch up the debtor’s funds in the meantime. As proposed in the 188th Report of the Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, however, the bond isn’t without limits.
Continue reading →
Published on:
COSA Finds No Error in Negligence Jury Instruction
Governments and businesses know – or at least they should – that there’s a difference between being vicariously liable and being directly negligent. Jurors may not, however, so how carefully should the distinction be explained come time for crafting jury questions? Perhaps not much – according to a new opinion of the Court of Special Appeals, provided the jury is otherwise instructed properly by the trial court and counsel, blurring the line between vicarious liability and negligence in a jury question can be excusable.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Won’t Get Fooled Again: Changes to Appellate Font and Spacing Rules
We all know the little tricks to stuffing the most content into the allotted number of pages of your appellate brief (currently 50 for the Court of Appeals and 35 for the Court of Special Appeals) – decreasing the line spacing, decreasing the margins, decreasing the kerning, decreasing the height of the text, etc. Well, you’re not fooling anybody: As noted by the Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in its 187th Report, “Appellate judges, in Maryland and elsewhere, are regrettably familiar with those tactics and legitimately complain about them.” The Committee has finally had enough, and is urging the Court of Appeals to amend the Maryland Rules to combat the problem.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Time Is On (Your) Side: A Proposed Change to Maryland Appellate Rule 8-412(c)
As the appellant in the Maryland appellate courts, when should you file your brief? Currently, it’s within 40 days after the clerk notifies you that the court has filed the record. Sounds easy enough, except the current Maryland Rules don’t actually require the clerk to send such a notice. In fixing that little problem, however, the Rules Committee is considering working in a smidge more time for practitioners to get their briefs in.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Limitation of Liability for Violation of Your Constitutional Rights: The Court of Appeals’ Decision in Espina v. Jackson
Maryland attorneys are eminently familiar with the State’s Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA), which imposes a limitation on liability for the local government entity of $200,000 for each individual claim ($500,000 aggregate for claims that arise from the same occurrence). This limitation on liability operates to strictly limit damages recoverable from the local government entity regardless of the extent of harm experienced by the plaintiff. And now, with today’s Court of Appeals’ decision in Espina v. Jackson (No. 35, Sept. Term 2014), that damages cap applies even in the face of egregious constitutional violations because such “constitutional torts” fall within the LGTCA’s “tortious acts or omissions” terminology.
Continue reading →