Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation via RSS

A contentious divide in the leadership of Republic First Bancorp, Inc. (Republic First) has now resulted in a third lawsuit against the company, this one filed by shareholders. Early last year, Republic First’s eight-person board of directors was evenly split into two camps: one led by former Republic First CEO, Vernon Hill, II, and another led by Harry Madonna, who had been CEO of Republic First prior to Hill. The two groups held conflicting views on the future of Republic First, with Hill’s faction seeking an expansion of retail banking operations and Madonna’s in favor of selling the company. The dispute between the two groups quickly became a public issue as Madonna’s group of directors issued a press release in March of 2022 accusing Hill and his associates of self-dealing and mismanagement. As a result of the letter, Republic First’s independent auditor expressed concerns about its forthcoming work with the company, and Republic First was unable to file its Form 10-K for the 2021 fiscal year until those concerns were addressed and the audit completed.

Firm Lands 58 Practice Area and 144 Attorney Recognitions in Latest Guide

Troutman Pepper, a national law firm with more than 1,200 attorneys in 23 strategically located cities across the United States, achieved 58 national and statewide practice area rankings in the latest edition of Chambers USA.

This year’s guide also recognized 135 firm attorneys…

Troutman Pepper earned 17 nationwide practice rankings in The Legal 500 United States 2023, an independent ranking authority of law firms around the world.

The Troutman Pepper finance practices was ranked in the following nationwide areas:

  • Finance: Project finance: energy and power
  • Finance: Commercial lending: advice to borrowers

Notably, this year Troutman Pepper also earned…

Business concept. Business people discussing the charts and graphs showing the results of their successful teamwork.

As any Wall Street litigator knows, in the securities industry, it is typical for brokerage firms to incentivize their employed financial advisers with significant upfront compensation at the beginning of a relationship or even at the beginning of each new financial year. These up-front payments are often structured as “forgivable loans” and memorialized in promissory notes. However, if the employment relationship ends prematurely or the financial advisor fails to meet certain objectives and obligations such as revenue goals, repayment obligations can be triggered. Not surprisingly, litigation stemming from these promissory notes is commonplace before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in its arbitral forum, and these arbitrations only increase in volume as we step into more turbulent economic times when layoffs and resignations become commonplace in the industry.

FS_Litigation_GettyImages-1346156665

Reprinted with permission from the May 4, 2023 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. © 2023 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

A recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Northwest Senior Housing v. Intercity Investment Properties (In re Northwest Senior Housing), addressed these important issues involving the retention of a public relations firm and highlights some important pitfalls to avoid.

FS_Litigation_GettyImages-1139446817

In Hyde Park Venture Partners Fund III, L.P. v. FairXchange, LLC,[1] the Delaware Court of Chancery provided a valuable reminder to corporations and their directors and officers that a corporation cannot assert a privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege, against its directors or the investors that appointed those directors in litigation unless one of three exceptions are met: (1) the parties agree by way of contract, such as a confidentiality agreement, that the corporation may assert privilege against certain directors and the investors that appointed that director; (2) the board of directors forms a special committee that excludes the director after which the committee can consult with counsel confidentially and retain the privilege against the director and the investor that appointed the director; or (3) sufficient adversity of interests has arisen and becomes known to the director, thus impacting the director’s ability to rely on corporate counsel for matters where the director or the investor that appointed the director and corporation’s interests are adverse.

FS_M&A_GettyImages-1067080086

In a closely watched case, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently held in a bench ruling in Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Fox Corporation that Fox Corporation’s (Fox) nonvoting stock was not entitled to a class vote under Section 242(b)(2) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) in connection with Fox’s proposed amendment to its charter that would insulate Fox officers from monetary liability in certain situations for breaches of the fiduciary duty of care. DGCL Section 242(b)(2) provides the holders of the outstanding shares of a class with a vote upon a proposed charter amendment, whether or not entitled to vote thereon by the charter, if the amendment would, among other things, “alter or change the powers, preferences, or special rights of the shares of such class so as to affect them adversely.”