• Engel & Schultz represented four minority shareholders who had only received de minimus distributions during their history as shareholders despite the fact that the company annually showed hundreds of thousands of dollars of profit. After years of discovery, submission of expert testimony that millions of dollars had been wasted on administrative costs, and only after commencement of trial, Engel & Schultz negotiated a buy-out of the shareholders based on a valuation of their shares given the company’s profit.
• Engel & Schultz successfully represented a minority shareholder, whom the firm alleged had been frozen out of a multi-million dollar company by the majority shareholder. The firm was successful in negotiating a settlement in which (1) the minority shareholder was paid six figures for lost income after the freeze-out, and (2) the minority shareholder was bought out by the majority shareholder for a seven figure number approximately ten times the amount that the majority shareholder had offered prior to our filing the litigation.
• In another freeze out case, the firm represented two minority shareholders and officers, whose dividends had been stopped and who had been physically barred from access to the company’s Massachusetts locale. The firm settled the case with the assets of the Company being divided up between the majority and minority shareholders.
• In two other cases, the Firm represented company founders and early employees in companies who had been squeezed out following the receipt of substantial new investments in one company and substantial profits being realized by the other company. In one case, the Firm obtained a six figure settlement for its client, and in the other case the Firm obtained a seven figure settlement for each of two clients that it represented.
• In two separate cases, the firm represented the trade group POWAAH (Protection of Working Animals and Handlers, Inc.), who were the kennel owners that kenneled greyhound dogs prior to the banning of greyhound racing in Massachusetts. Engel & Schultz negotiated with the Gaming Commission, who subsequently agreed to pay POWAAH $500,000+ in 2008 “Outs” (i.e. money sent to the Commonwealth by racetracks on uncollected successful wagers) without a waiver (upon which the Commonwealth had previously insisted) of its claims to 2009 “Outs” money. After the firm sued the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court ordered the Commonwealth to pay POWAAH the previously withheld 2009 “Outs”, an additional $425,000. In separate litigation, the Commonwealth agreed to pay POWAAH the full amount of payments that had been collected during a statutory moratorium period, $700,000+, accepting the Firm’ argument that a statutory stoppage of payments for a twelve month period was only meant to be a temporary suspension of payments and not a permanent denial of payments as the Racing Commission had previously contended.
• The firm successfully brought an arbitration action against a home contractor, who had abandoned the renovation project, leaving the house largely unfinished with work which fell below building code standards. The firm successfully obtained a judgment against the contractor for approximately $500,000.
• The firm represented a bank president, who was alleged to have violated his fiduciary duties to the bank, when he arranged an early distribution of funds from his retirement account. The FDIC threatened to seek restitution of close to $2 million and to ban the President from working in the banking industry. While unable to persuade the FDIC to allow the bank president to continue to work in the banking industry, the firm successfully convinced the FDIC not to recommend criminal actions against the former President and negotiated the civil fines levied against the former bank president to a small five figure number.
History of Success
In addition to winning millions of dollars for its clients, the firm and its lawyers have successfully mounted and defended constitutional challenges to statutes and laws, overturned agency interpretations of its statutes, and established common law rights previously not recognized in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.