We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 10

Home builder alleges trade secret theft of strategic plan by former executive

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 7 2008

One of the nation’s large home builders recently filed suit against a former executive in federal court in Albuquerque, New Mexico for alleged misuse of the company’s trade secrets related to a highly confidential internal strategic plan

Connecticut Supreme Court refines the "piercing the corporate veil" doctrine

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 20 2010

The Connecticut Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" cannot apply to a single-owner limited liability company absent a finding that the owner used his control over the entity to perpetrate a fraud

Partner's fraud found to be non-dischargeable by "innocent" partner

  • Frost Brown Todd LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 22 2010

Late this summer, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, took on an issue of first impression - whether the fraud of one partner can be imputed to an "innocent" partner in order to render a judgment non-dischargeable

Arizona Supreme Court rejects homeowners’ attempt to lengthen the Statute of Repose for property defect claims

  • Fennemore Craig
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 9 2011

On June 30, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court, in Albano v. Shea Homes, issued an advisory opinion to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, concluding class action “tolling” does not apply to extend the time limit set by Arizona’s Statute of Repose for homeowners to file lawsuits against builders for construction defects

Kentucky adopts economic loss doctrine contractors’ contract remedies for disputes in construction projects of renewed importance

  • Frost Brown Todd LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 1 2011

On June 16, 2011, Kentucky’s highest court adopted the economic loss doctrine

Offer, acceptance, and consideration examined by the Court of Chancery

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 11 2012

In the recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision of James J. Gory Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. BPG Residential Partners V, LLC and the BucciniPollin Group, Inc., Del. Ch. C.A. No. 6999-VCG (Del. 30, 2011), the Court examined the fundamental contract tenets of offer, acceptance, and consideration in denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

Pennsylvania Superior Court rejects fraud requirement for UTPCPL catchall liability

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 18 2012

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently departed from a settled line of cases in holding that “misleading conduct,” as opposed to fraud, could support a violation of the catchall provision of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”

Individual members of LLC personally liable for torts committed in furtherance of the LLC’s business

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2012

In the South Carolina case of 16 Jade Street, LLC v. R. Design Construction Company, the court wrestled with the scope of protection from tort liability provided to individual members of a limited liability company

Contractor’s officers liable for failure to complete punch list

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2012

A cautionary tale about the consequences of disregarding the separateness of a corporate entity is told in the recent case of Christopher v. Sinyard out of Georgia

Colorado Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals' interpretation of Colorado trust fund statute

  • Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 10 2013

Approximately two and a half years ago, I wrote about a broad interpretation placed on the Colorado trust fund statute by the Colorado Court of