Category: Business Law

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Prompt Payment Law Decision

By ,

Prompt Payment Law Does Not Always Mandate Bad Faith Awards

In an important decision regarding public contracts, The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Commonwealth decision automatically awarding attorney fees and a one percent penalty to contractors whose payments were breached in bad faith. The city of Allentown, Pennsylvania (Allentown) contracted A. Scott Enterprises (Scott) to complete a paving project.

After contaminated soil was discovered at the job site, the project was delayed. Allentown and Scott could not come to an agreement over the additional fees incurred because of the project’s delay and the contaminated soil. Scott then filed suit to recover losses on the delayed project. They were awarded $927,299. The jury found that the city breached its contract and acted in bad faith by refusing to pay Scott for the delays and damaged contract.

Though Scott received damages, they were not awarded attorney fees, the monthly one percent penalty, or interest. Scott then took the case to the Commonwealth Court which held that when the jury found that Allentown acted in bad faith, fees and penalties were mandated by law.

Allentown took the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that the use of “may” in the Prompt Payment Law indicates that the award of attorney fees and penalties is subject to review on a case by case basis. That said, in most cases, public owners found to act in bad faith are required to pay public contractor’s attorney fees and penalties.

Does This Ruling Permit Exceptions?

Allentown has to take the case to trial court, where they may still be required to pay Scott penalties. The Supreme Court decision simply opened the door for exceptions to the rule.

Only in rare cases, very good reasons will exempt owners from paying out those awards. The Procurement Code will most likely prevail in most cases, requiring owners to pay their contractors on time and as agreed upon.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Tackle Tough Business Litigation

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent clients in a variety of business disputes. We handle cases involving OSHA investigations, wrongful termination, discrimination, overtime pay disputes, trademark infringement, business torts, and FTC cases. Call our Center City Philadelphia offices at 215-574-0600 or complete our online contact form to discuss your case.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: SEPTA Claim

By ,

Court Rejects Appeal by Former SEPTA Worker on Claims for Hostile Work Environment and Discrimination

On August 8, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the appeal of former SEPTA employee Marie Selvato, who sued SEPTA after she was seen at a taping of “Live with Kelly & Michael” while on sick leave. Selvato brought an action against former employee SEPTA for hostile work environment and discrimination. Selvato claimed she was sexually harassed between 2004 until she was terminated. Selvato’s claims were dismissed last year when U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgement to SEPTA, finding that she failed to show a connection between her termination and sexual harassment allegations.

Pennsylvania law requires claimants to first file a hostile work environment claim with the EEOC which requires that claims must be filed within 300 days of unlawful employment action. Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 2013). The trial court ruled that most of Selvato’s claims fell outside of this 300 day window. Selvato’s claims stemmed from instances of alleged sexual harassment between 2004 and 2012. However, a majority of the instances occurred between 2004 and 2009. Selvato claimed her supervisor James Stevens made two remarks within the 300 day window that rise to the level of sexual harassment. Stevens told her that he was “stalking her Facebook pictures” because he had gone to school with Selvato’s sister. He also told Selvato that he would like to “pet” a flower on her blouse because it looked soft. The Eastern District granted summary judgment against Selvato, which she subsequently appealed.

To make a hostile work environment claim, Selvato had the prima facie burden of proffering evidence to show the following elements: “1) the employee suffered intentional discrimination because of his/her sex, 2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive, 3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff, 4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances, and 5) the existence of respondeat superior liability.” Mandel, 706 F.3d at 165. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts conclusion that these comments, though offensive, did not rise to the level of physical threat necessary to establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claim as well citing lack of evidence and pure speculation by Selvato. 

Selvato v. SEPTA, No. 15-3686, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14524 (3d Cir. Aug. 8, 2016)

For more information, call our employment lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Rainbow Apparel Legal Fees Lawsuit

By ,

Recently, the named partner of a small law firm, Michael Kimm, and co-plaintiff Rainbow Apparel, brought a lawsuit against KCC Trading, Inc. and several individual defendants, alleging that defendants failed to pay them rightfully earned legal fees. The trial court dismissed Kimm’s case, and the appellate court affirmed, on grounds that requiring clients to pay their attorney to sue themselves constitutes as unlawful fee shifting.

KCC and Rainbow Apparel had entered into a multi-million-dollar business venture together. KCC was to supply the financing for Rainbow’s business ventures. In October 2009, KCC retained Kimm’s law firm. They agreed upon a rate of $400 per hour for work performed by Kimm himself, and $250 an hour for work performed by Kimm’s associates. In addition to these fees set forth in the retainer agreement, KCC also agreed to pay the Kimm Law Firm $15,000 a month on a rolling basis, beginning on October 15, 2009. The contract setting forth the fee arrangement also included indemnification and termination clauses.

KCC fired Kimm in April 2010. Kimm then sent KCC the billing statements from October 2009 through March 2010, which totaled nearly $50,000. Then, several months later, Kimm sent KCC a second bill, charging the company over thirty thousand dollars for hours expended litigating against KCC to collect the unpaid legal fees.

An Unenforceable Clause

Kimm sued KCC on grounds that they had breached their contract. They also sued for quantum meruit (reasonable value of services), payment on the basis of account stated, and unjust enrichment. Kimm moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied his motion. The trial court judge dismissed Kimm’s claim for the $30,000 incurred as a result of the fee litigation. The court reasoned that the indemnification clause was unenforceable because it violated public policy. The trial court also reduced the $50,000 sought by Kimm, finding that the bill was unreasonably high.

Kimm appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal regarding the $30,000 fee. The court noted that requiring clients to pay their attorney to sue themselves constitutes unlawful fee shifting. The appellate court also upheld the reduction of the $50,000 fee as unreasonable.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Have Experience Litigating Indemnification Clauses and Breach of Contract

If you are involved in a contractual dispute, the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green has the experience to handle your case swiftly and effectively. To schedule a consultation with one of our reputable attorneys, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers: Judge Halts Rideshare Services

By ,

On October 6, 2016, Judge Lisa Carpenter of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted a preliminary injunction requiring that rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft cease operations in Philadelphia. Judge Carpenter ruled that these services, known as transportation network companies, (“TNCs”), violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance.

The original Complaint was filed by a number of plaintiffs, including Rob Blount, the head of the Taxi Workers Alliance. The Complaint alleged that the companies discriminate against disabled riders because there are no requirements to ensure vehicles can accommodate wheelchairs or protections against refusing to allow service animals, as well as no protection against unfair pricing. In September, Blount amended the Complaint, alleging the Philadelphia Parking Authority violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by not subjecting TNCs to the same “limitations, assessments, vehicle inspections, or driver requirements.”

If the TNCs violate the injunction, Uber and Lyft could be held in contempt of court.

For more information, call the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pinus & Green, P.C. today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Enforceability of Fee Agreement Via Email

By ,

Recently, a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in a business litigation case where a contingent fee agreement, which was set forth in an email between an attorney and client, was enforceable against the client even though the client did not sign it.

In that case, the client owed approximately $40,000 to his attorney under that contingent fee agreement. The Court found that client should be responsible for about $39,000 of it. The main takeaway in that case has major impacts on how attorneys or other businesspeople can collect their fees. The fee agreement between attorney and client was enforceable since it appeared in an email between the parties and no signature by the parties was necessary. In that case, it may also be important to note that the email that contained the agreement requested a $32,000 upfront fee which the client promptly paid.

Emails Constitute as “In Writing”

The client attempted to argue that the fee agreement was not enforceable since the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) for attorneys requires that contingent fee agreements must be in writing. The court found that the client’s argument failed for two reasons: first because the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys do not have the same weight as substantive law in civil proceedings since those rules are intended to be relied upon in attorney disciplinary proceedings; secondly, the court said that the contingent fee agreement was in fact in writing, as required by the RPCs, since it was in an email sent from the attorney to the client.

Although attorneys and other businesses have traditionally favored signed paper contracts for these types of fee agreements, technology appears to be carrying more weight these days. Even though it was not mentioned in the Court’s opinion, the Court may have also found it important that there was no question that the client actually read and received the emailed fee arrangement since he paid the $32,000 in response to that email. Additionally, this client was likely quite knowledgeable in business matters since his attorney was defending him regarding a $1.5 million loan he received from his employer, a major bank.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Counsel on Business Litigation Issues

Call the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pinus & Green, P.C. today at 215-574-0600, or contact us online, to see how we can protect your rights in when entering into or disputing business agreements.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: NJ Court Upholds Arbitration Award

By ,

A New Jersey federal court recently ruled that corporate officers could be bound by an arbitration agreement that was only signed in the name of the company. The court reasoned that the individual officers were alter egos of the corporation, and successors-in-interest to their company. Significantly, because the officers had relied on the arbitration agreement to assert a counterclaim during arbitration, the court determined that they could not now escape being bound by its terms.

New World Solutions, Inc. (NWS) was formed in 2007 to provide IT services to another corporation, Asta. NWS was solely owned by Neal and Coyne, who also served as directors. Two years after formation, NWS and Asta entered into a contract for the provision of services. But after NWS paid Asta four million dollars, Asta terminated the agreement, alleging that NWS submitted inflated invoices, created a malfunctioning replacement unit, and provided essentially useless network monitoring services.

Asta commenced arbitration proceedings against NWS. The relevant provision in the services agreement specified that disputes “between the Parties” would be resolved in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Although NWS was represented by counsel at the outset, at some point, Coyne, one of the directors, assumed representation and filed the counterclaim in arbitration. A separate arbitration was initiated against Neal and Coyne individually.

In addition to finding that Coyne and Neal were bound by the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator also determined that they had used NWS to defraud Asta out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. The principals were held liable for damages in excess of three million dollars. They appealed, and a New Jersey District Court confirmed the arbitration award in full on a motion for summary judgment.

The Importance of This Ruling in Business Litigation

 A threshold issue the court had to address was whether it could assert jurisdiction over Neal and Coyne because they were not named parties to the arbitration agreement. The court determined that pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, the court should determine whether a dispute is to be arbitrated, unless the parties agree otherwise. The court ultimately confirmed the award even though Neal and Coyne refused to participate in the proceedings.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Provide Competent Counsel in Arbitration

This decision serves as an important reminder that corporate officers can be bound by arbitration agreements signed in the name of their principal. If you need counsel for arbitration, the Philadelphia business litigation lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are prepared to help. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we proudly serve businesses located in Pennsylvania and South Jersey. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Superior Court Enforces Contingency Fee Arrangement Written in an E-mail

By ,

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an Allegheny County Court decision that awarded $40,000 to a personal injury firm in Pittsburgh. Flaherty Fardo, LLC v. Keiser, No. 1260 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct., Aug. 8, 2016).

The dispute was between the firm, Flaherty Fardo, and one of its clients, Thomas Keiser. Keiser claimed that a contingency fee arrangement written in an e-mail was unenforceable, because it was not a “signed writing to reflect the terms of the parties’ agreement,” and relied on the Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(c) to solidify his argument.

Keiser hired Flaherty Fardo to defend him in a lawsuit against Citigroup, his former employer. Part of Keiser’s compensation package when he was hired included an employee forgivable loan of approximately $1.5 million under a nine-year arrangement. When Keiser left the company after only three years, Citigroup sued to recover the remaining $1.03 million, plus interest and attorneys’ fees of about $400,000.

The contingency fee arrangement e-mail contained a $32,000 flat fee up front, and an additional ten percent of any savings realized by the firm from the total amount Citigroup was asking. Following arbitration, Citigroup was awarded the entire remaining loan amount, but no interest or attorneys’ fees. Flaherty Fardo then sent Keiser an invoice for $40,000, believing it had saved Keiser $400,000. After Keiser fired the firm and refused to pay, the firm filed a complaint against him.

The Superior Court, relying on precedent, found that the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct do not have the effect of substantive law, but are instead only used in disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, even if those rules did have legal effect, the Court found that the arrangement would have been enforceable, because it was in writing. Furthermore, even though the arrangement was not signed and does not comply with the statute of frauds, the Superior Court stated there is no prior case law that states contingency fee agreements have to comply strictly with the statute of frauds. Therefore, the ruling was affirmed and Flaherty Fardo was awarded the nearly $40,000.

For more information, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: New Jersey Cops Settle Whistleblower Case for $400,000

By ,

In 2011, then-Detective Sergeant John A. Hamilton and then-Captain Douglas F. Carmen filed suit against the Linwood Police Department in New Jersey, alleging that Chief Jim Baker’s behavior created a hostile and retaliatory work environment. Among many allegations, the lawsuit claims Chief Baker asked the two officers to lie about police protection that was afforded to a woman who was later stabbed to death. The allegations also claim Chief Baker influenced one of the officers to make a deal that would favor Chief Baker and hurt other officers, as well as Chief Baker taking away the two officers’ chance to work overtime despite having a contractual right to overtime pay.

 

Many of these instances that disparaged the reputations of both officers occurred over phone conversations that were recorded. The ex-Detective Sergeant Hamilton was also passed over for a less qualified candidate for the position of Chief when Baker retired (ex-Detective Sergeant Hamilton did become chief in March of 2015 when Baker retired). Ultimately, the suit was settled against the city for $400,000.

For more information about whistleblower claims, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: NJ Superior Court Reverses $18M Verdict in Accutane Litigation

By ,

In July, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division overturned an $18M jury verdict against Defendant Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., the manufacturer of Accutane, a popular drug for severe cystic acne. Rossitto v. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. 2016 WL 3943335 (N.J. App. Div. Jul. 22, 2016). Plaintiffs were Accutane users who claimed that they developed ulcerative colitis, a chronic disease of the large intestine after using the product for years and that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn about the risk of developing this condition.

 

The Appellate Court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial after the trial court allowed Plaintiffs’ counsel to admit into evidence a change to the drug’s warning label in 2000, after Plaintiffs had stopped taking the drug, even after that evidence was initially barred earlier in the trial. The court found this mistake to be prejudicial to Defendant, because it fostered the belief that the labels previous to the 2000 label did not meet the proper standards. Furthermore, the trial court erred in restricting the number of defense expert witnesses to testify on general causation.

 

Roche has continued to win on appeal in Accutane cases. In 2014 and 2015, the Superior Court reversed a $25 million verdict and a $2.1 million verdict against the company, respectively, in similar cases. In 2010, the same court overturned a $10.5 million verdict against the company, sending the case back for retrial based on a separate evidentiary issue. Roche discontinued the sale of Accutane in 2009.  

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Third Circuit Revives Defamation Suit Involving Philadelphia Firefighter

By ,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided on July 26, 2016 to revive a firefighter’s defamation and false light claim against the New York Daily News after rehearing the claim on June 21. The claim involved a Philadelphia firefighter, Francis Cheney, whose photograph appeared with an article in January about a sex scandal involving Philadelphia firefighters and a paramedic.

The Third Circuit originally affirmed a dismissal of the suit because Cheney could not show that the allegedly defamatory material could reasonably be understood as referring to him, as the article never mentions his name and the photograph was just a stock photograph. However, in reviving the claim, the Court stated that a reasonable reader could, in fact, conclude that the text could be “of and concerning” him. One of the Court’s reasons was that the picture was placed directly next to the text, and it was the only picture of a firefighter that ran along with the story. Furthermore, many firefighters were implicated in the story, but Cheney’s name is the only one that appeared in print, despite the fact that he was not involved in the scandal. These circumstances together could lead a reasonable reader to believe Cheney was involved in the scandal.

The attorneys for Cheney will now continue to litigate the case.

The Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green represent clients in defamation and disparagement claims.  For more information call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.