Pastore & Dailey Attorneys Fees Awarded in Florida

Pastore & Dailey LLC has successfully argued for the award of attorney’s fees and costs in the Southern District of Florida for a large Belgian Based Conglomerate. The standard for the award of attorney’s fees is often very high, given the ‘American Rule’ where each party is expected to bear their own costs for litigation. This award exemplifies the quality of work Pastore and Dailey does for their clients, and represents added value, as not only were our client’s interests successfully defended, their out-of-pocket expenses were in large part passed onto the wrongdoing defendant in this case.

 

P&D Successfully Defends Against Motion for Summary Judgement

The Firm has achieved another victory in defeating a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by two prestigious law firms on behalf of their multi-billion dollar corporate client, a former portfolio company of Morgan Stanley Private Equity. The Motion for Summary Judgment sought dismissal of our Clients’ two primary claims – fraud and unjust enrichment – and was denied, thereby allowing these claims to proceed to trial.  These claims arose out of a nationwide direct mail marketing campaign.  This is another example of Pastore & Dailey prevailing over other large national firms.

Pastore & Dailey Retained in Significant Ratings Agency Case

We have recently been retained to defend a ratings agency corporate executive in case of substantial importance to the United States financial industry involving shareholder breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to credit ratings given to mortgage backed securities.   This action is pending in state court in New York, and the damages sought are in the billions.

 

NY State Court Win

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.

Hearing Victory

Pastore & Dailey LLC successfully represented a long standing hedge fund client that specializes in micro cap lending in two separate phases of litigation against a sophisticated commercial borrower.  First, Pastore & Dailey secured a favorable settlement for its client as a result of filing an application for pre-judgment remedy, which sought to attach the assets of the defendant, who was an out of state resident.  After the settlement agreement was breached over a year after it was executed, Pastore & Dailey’s investigation into the Defendants representations during the settlement negotiation process led it to conclude that the Defendants fraudulently induced our client into signing the settlement agreement.  Pastore & Dailey LLC filed various motions for contempt and sanctions based on the fraudulent inducement.  After two days of hearings and a plethora of briefs, the Court found that Pastore & Dailey LLC showed, by meeting the very high standard of clear and convincing evidence, that Defendants committed fraud in inducing our client to execute the settlement agreement.  The Court ultimately awarded sanctions against Defendants in the form of attorneys’ fees, voided the settlement agreement, and allowed our client to continue to pursue its claims against Defendants.

Pastore & Dailey Defeats AM Law 25 firm in Delaware Bankruptcy Court Concerning Investment Banking Fee

Pastore & Dailey successfully dismissed claims filed in Delaware bankruptcy court by one of the nation’s largest mineral mining companies. Pastore & Dailey represents an investment bank seeking a fee associated with $650 million in construction financing for the project. The mining company was attempting to avoid paying this fee by asserting that claims had been discharged in bankruptcy.

Matthew Bowie Joins Pastore & Dailey LLC, Will Manage Firm’s New Boston Office

The law firm of Pastore & Dailey LLC is pleased to welcome Matthew Bowie as Counsel. Matthew will open and manage Pastore & Dailey’s new Massachusetts office in the Cambridge Innovation Center located at 50 Milk St. in Boston’s Financial District. Pastore & Dailey also has two Connecticut offices in Glastonbury and Stamford, two Florida offices in Gainesville and Melbourne, and an office in New York City. Matthew joins a fast-growing firm of professionals, including the former Connecticut Secretary of the State, the former general counsel of a Wall Street firm, and a senior New York Stock Exchange regulatory attorney. Matthew will assist clients seeking legal representation in matters involving corporate law, securities law, finance, and intellectual property.

Prior to joining Pastore & Dailey, Matthew practiced law at Goodwin Procter LLP. At Goodwin Procter, Matthew served as counsel for various prominent companies and individuals, including the nation’s largest mortgage lender, the world’s largest third-party coin certification service company, and several directors of a significant multinational chemical company. After his time at Goodwin Procter, Matthew served as Associate Counsel for Consumers United, Inc., reporting directly to the General Counsel of the largest online, independent auto insurance agency in the United States.

Matthew earned his Bachelor of Arts from Boston College, graduating magna cum laude. He then earned his law degree from The George Washington University School of Law, graduating with honors. Before practicing law, Matthew served as an internal operations consultant for F.W. Webb. Matthew is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts. Matthew stated, “I am excited to open and manage Pastore & Dailey’s Boston office and to provide world-class legal services to clients in the thriving business community of the Greater Boston area.”

“We are extremely pleased to bring Matt to the firm and expand our practice to the Boston market,” said Pastore & Dailey’s Managing Partner, Joe Pastore. “We pride ourselves on the unique combination of big firm and sophisticated legal services coupled with a fair and reasonable approach to billing and fee structures. We are confident that with Matt’s experience and our approach, our firm will be an asset to Boston’s business community.”

 

New Tax Disclosure Requirements for Federal Contractors

You are receiving this notice because you are a client or friend of our practice who has a business or other professional interest in doing business with the United States Department of Defense, the General Services Administration or NASA.

On Friday, December 4, 2015, the federal government released an interim rule, effective February 26, 2016, prohibiting the Federal Government from entering into a contract with any corporation having a federal tax liability or a felony conviction under any federal law. The contracting agency is enabled by the interim rule to make exception if two requirement are met:

  1. The agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation; and
  2. The agency has made a determination that suspension or debarment of the corporation is not necessary to protect the interests of the government.

The rule requires that all offerors responding to federal solicitations make a representation as to whether the offeror is a corporation with a delinquent tax liability or felony conviction under federal law.

When an offeror indicates it is both a corporation and owes federal taxes or has a felony conviction, then the contracting officer is required to both request additional information from the offeror and notify the agency official responsible for initiating debarment or suspension action. At that point, the CO is disabled from awarding the contract to the offeror unless and until the agency had considered suspension or debarment and decided against it.

A federal tax delinquency is treated elsewhere in the FARs  as greater than $3500 and meeting both of the following conditions:

(i) The tax liability is finally determined. The liability is finally determined if it has been assessed. A liability is not finally determined if there is a pending administrative or judicial challenge. In the case of a judicial challenge to the liability, the liability is not finally determined until all judicial appeal rights have been exhausted.

(ii) The taxpayer is delinquent in making payment. A taxpayer is delinquent if the taxpayer has failed to pay the tax liability when full payment was due and required. A taxpayer is not delinquent in cases where enforced collection action is precluded.

See, FAR 52.209-5.

The new rule also includes a certification requirement for agencies entering into certain contracts worth over $5 million. Generally speaking, if a contract falls under the rule, the agency must receive certain tax certifications.

This rule is the distillation of the issues underlying the inquiries of Congress concerning federal contractors who do not pay their taxes.

If you are facing a federal contracting issue, review these new federal tax compliance requirements and consider the suspension or debarment exposures associated with the associated new disclosure requirements.

This note is intended as a general summary of legal principles and is not intended as legal or tax advice. You should discuss your specific circumstances with a qualified professional before taking an action.

Smolnik Appointed New Chair of Subcommittee by CT General Assembly

Dan Smolnik, Of Counsel with Pastore & Dailey LLC, has just been appointed by the Connecticut General Assembly to the Commission on Connecticut’s Leadership in Corporation & Business Law.  He will be chairing the subcommittee on tax law and policy.

Defeated Motion to Stay

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.