Cases
Significant Representations: Represented client in heavy-industry services field in a case involving theft of trade secrets
unfair competition brought against a direct competitor, as well as three former employees who had joined the competitor. Client alleged that the defendants stole trade secrets, violated the federal Computer Fraud
Abuse Act,
committed other unlawful acts under Florida law. After discovery involving competing computer forensics experts was conducted, we were able to establish that the three former employees had stolen computerized trade secrets
used them to exp
the competitor's business. The employees
others had also secretly wiped computers
PDAs in an effort to hide their wrongdoing. After we moved for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, the court ordered that an adverse inference jury instruction would be given. Immediately prior to trial, the matter settled on favorable financial terms, as well as the defendants' agreement to extend both the time
scope of the already sweeping preliminary injunctive relief.
Represented executives of a large insurance company against claims for tortious interference with contract asserted by former employee. The employee had previously sued the insurance company for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1981. That case went to trial, which resulted in a complete defense jury verdict. The plaintiff then sued the individuals in Georgia state court. The insurance company was originally represented by another law firm in Atlanta. After conducting no discovery, the insurance company moved for summary judgment based primarily on res judicata. That motion was denied,
the case set for trial. Greenberg Traurig was retained to try the case. On the night before opening arguments, the case was settled on favorable terms.
Represented international pharmaceutical company in putative ERISA
securities fraud class action involving alleged under-valuation of stock in employee stock bonus plan (ESBP). Plaintiffs alleged that the company should have disclosed that it was involved in preliminary merger talks
that the failure to do so violated ERISA
Rule 10b-5. In the alternative to disclosure, Plaintiffs alleged that the company was obligated to impose a blackout period on puts of plan stock. Plaintiffs also alleged that the ESBP's procedure for h
ling puts of plan stock resulted in an ERISA prohibited transaction. Defeated class certification, obtained summary judgment on two of three remaining plaintiffs, excluded three of Plaintiffs' four purported expert witnesses,
bifurcated the ERISA
securities fraud claims.
Advised heavy industry services provider regarding potential withdrawal liability under the Multi-employer Pension Plan Act in connection with recapitalization. Through an aggressive investigation
documentation strategy, provided the lender with adequate assurance that the building
construction industry exemption to withdrawal liability applied to the client's business,
that the potential for withdrawal liability was therefore minimal, despite the seriously underfunded status of many of the pension plans to which the client had contributed.
Advised national restaurant company regarding negotiation strategy with union for avoidance or minimization of underfunded pension plan liability.
Represented airline in connection with strategic declaratory judgment action against State of Wisconsin related to ERISA preemption of state FMLA. The airline's ERISA sick leave plan allowed employees to take sick leave only to care for their own illness or injury, while state law would require the airline to allow employees to take sick leave to care for family members. The matter was eventually resolved without filing the declaratory judgment.
Represented large franchisor of quick-service restaurants in lawsuit brought by former franchisee. The former franchisee had defaulted under the franchise agreement
failed to meet the terms of a forbearance agreement. When the franchise terminated, the franchisee refused to vacate the restaurant
continued to operate it as before. After obtaining a TRO
preliminary injunction with another Atlanta law firm, the franchisor declined to conduct discovery
instead moved for judgment on the pleadings, but failed to obtain a complete dismissal of the franchisee's claims. The case was set for trial,
Greenberg Traurig was retained to try the case. Re-opened discovery for two weeks, deposed the plaintiffs
conducted an aggressive third-party discovery campaign. Following the limited discovery, moved for summary on both the franchisee's claims
clients' counterclaims against the franchisee. The Court granted both motions for summary judgment,
awarded client full damages, plus attorneys' fees
costs.
Represented large pharmaceutical company in claim by former executive alleging gender
pregnancy discrimination
violations of the FMLA. All claims were ultimately dismissed, a result upheld on appeal.
Represented large automobile auction company in suit by former auctioneer alleging race discrimination
harassment. The case ultimately settled on terms favorable to the client.
Advised airline on potential action against state government arising out of fact that state FMLA law was in conflict with airline's collective bargaining agreement with regard to the use of sick leave.
Represented large home improvement/hardware store in seeking temporary restraining order
preliminary injunction against former executive
executive's new company for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract
unfair competition.
Advised large media company regarding strategic response to secondary labor disturbance at company's facility in California. Carpenters' union had staged demonstration on sidewalk outside media company's building in an effort to pressure media company to stop doing business with subcontractor with which union had an area st
ards dispute.
Defended large commercial matter in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The case involved the explosion of an industrial waste-heat boiler allegedly caused by a defective repair to the boiler. The plaintiff alleged that client, which had performed maintenance
upgrades on the boiler in the past, caused the explosion by making a defective repair, or negligently failed to alert the plaintiff to the existence of the defective repair. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of warranty
general negligence against client
others,
dem
ed more than $28 million in damages.
The above representations were h
led by Mr. Hall prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
