This week’s New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss shareholder oppression within a business partnership. Topics discussed include how oppression within an organization is determined and ways in which the court assesses the company’s value for purposes of dissolution.
This week’s New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and what it means to businesses in the Garden State.
On Monday, May 2, 2005, Honorable Jonathan N. Harris of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County issued two opinions which should be carefully reviewed by companies leasing goods in the Garden State.
Two decisions against Wells Fargo Financial Leasing Inc. will require equipment lessors to review the structure of future lease agreements.
Furst v. Einstein Moonjy, Inc. – The New Jersey Supreme Court in Furst v. Einstein Moonjy, Inc. found that the specific facts of the case were a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act and held that the consumer is entitled to three times the “replacement cost,” plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
New Jersey has one of the most liberal consumer protection statutes in the nation, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Notwithstanding the same, on Thursday, November 18, 2004, the Appellate Division found that a consumer may only be awarded attorney fees if he can demonstrate an “ascertainable loss” caused by the violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.
Niu v. Pangram Corp. v. Kaisheng Fan, Jia Mi, Dong Li v. Hongjun Yuan – Shareholder agreements.
Portfolio Financial Servicing Co., etc. v. Sharemax.com, Inc., et al – District Court New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgement in a case which evolved from an alleged breach of a commercial lease. The court held that Sharemax.com was not liable for the debts of its now-defunct parent under either the doctrine of successor liability or the doctrine of corporate alter ego.
New Jersey Institute of Technology v. Medjet, Inc –
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed plaintiff’s patent claim against the defendant. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to identify one of its employees as a co-inventor. Ultimately, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the employee’s contribution with clear and convincing evidence.
