LPGM attorneys David Potter and Jaipat Jain obtained a preliminary injunction for an LPGM client in United States District Court in Minnesota that foiled an attempted corporate coup. After the owner of two wholly-owned subsidiaries advised the CEO of those two companies that he was being replaced, the CEO refused to leave and purported to remove the other two directors in each company. Upon LPGM’s motion, the Court enjoined the CEO from representing himself as an owner, director, officer, employee, or agent of the companies. A copy of the Court’s decision is available here.
In an insurance coverage matter successfully handled by LPGM Partner Yale Glazer, the Second Circuit broadly applied a two-year suit limitation period in a first-party property policy to run from the date on which the physical loss occurred. The Court rejected the insured’s argument that the provision – which, by its terms, was triggered as of “the date on which physical loss or damage occurred” – should be applied differently to a demand for lost business income. In finding for LPGM’s insurer client, the Second Circuit held that the provision was “reasonable and therefore enforceable against” the insured.
For further details, click here.
LPGM’s defense of a mutual fund, its adviser and senior officers in a $600 million securities class action was featured in a June 7, 2018 Law 360 article. LPGM partners James F. Moyle and Robert Giacovas have extensive experience representing parties in securities litigation, arbitrations and regulatory matters. The full article is featured here.
Jaipat Jain was a featured panelist on the regulatory aspects of Initial Coin Offerings at the LegalEra Conference held in New York City on May 24-25.
The coverage lawsuit at issue followed an underlying negligence action brought against a general contractor, a subcontractor and others. The general contractor sought additional insured coverage under the subcontractor’s policy. That policy included an additional insured endorsement which stated that i) “[t]he person or organization [required to be included as an additional insured, [i.e., the general contractor] does not qualify as an additional insured with respect to the independent acts or omissions of such person or organization”; and ii) “[t]he person or organization is only an additional insured with respect to liability caused by ‘your work’ [i.e., the subcontractor’s work] for that additional insured.” The trial court held that the insurer had a duty to defend because the underlying action alleged that the subcontractor – its named insured — caused the accident.
The First Department unanimously reversed, finding that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the general contractor. The Court specifically found that a duty to defend was not triggered by the underlying negligence claims asserted against the named insured. As the Court concluded, the endorsement only covers an additional insured’s vicarious liability and, since no such claim was alleged against the general contractor, there is no coverage.
Jaipat Jain on May 10 chaired and served as faculty for a 3-hour continuing legal education program on Blockchain for Lawyers. The CLE was heavily subscribed and covered not only the regulation of cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings and class action lawsuits, but also the building blocks of the technology behind bitcoin and smart contracts.
For complete details, click here.
LPGM is pleased to announce that four of its Partners are included in the 2017 edition of the New York (Metro) Super Lawyers Magazine: Robert Giacovas (SuperLawyer 2013-2017), Yale Glazer (SuperLawyer 2013-2017), Stephen M. Lazare (Super Lawyer 2016-2017) and James F. Moyle (SuperLawyer 2013-2017).
The methodology for selection includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. No more than five percent of the attorneys in a jurisdiction are chosen as Super Lawyers each year.
For full details click here.