Business Litigation Legal Questions

You don't specify whether you are a defendant or a plaintiff. Generally speaking, civil litigants have no right to representation in commercial matters. If you are a plaintiff in some kinds of matters and stand to reap a recovery, it may be possible to find an attorney to represent you on a contingent-fee basis. You do not provide any information about the nature of the matter or the size, if any, of the recovery you stand to make.... Read Answer

As a general matter, the rights of a member of an LLC (which is NOT a partnership) are determined by the terms of the parties' operating agreement. An attorney would need to review that agreement before advising you. As a general matter, you may have the right to withdraw from an LLC and will almost certainly have the right to close a "joint" account (although a joint account is not appropriate in the context of a business operated by an LLC). As you say, you need to consult an attorney. As an initial expedient, have you considered simply approaching your co-owner and telling her that you want out?... Read Answer

First, and most importantly, whether you should defend a lawsuit never depends on the merits of the suit or the plaintiff's motivation, because, under the wrong circumstances, your failure to defend will result in a default judgment against you. In general, whether you can be sued in a remote state depends on your "minimum contacts" with that state. You do not provide any facts from which the nature of your contacts with TN can be ascertained. Accordingly, it is impossible to provide any insight on what you might be looking at. So, you get the general advice: see an attorney, have him review whatever papers you may have, and discuss your contacts with TN with him.... Read Answer

Collecting on a debt owed by a foreign debtor has a lot of variables. If the debtor has sufficient contacts to be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, it might be possible to sue here (at relatively low cost), then enforce any resulting judgment in Singapore. Otherwise, it may be necessary to sue in the Singapore courts. You don't provide any of the details of the parties, of the underlying contract (and whether it contains a "jurisdiction" clause), so it is not possible to be specific. You need to contact an attorney who does collection work, possibly internationally. If you need help in thinking about this, please call our office.... Read Answer

New York law takes a very dim view of contracts that preclude employees from engaging in their traditional livelihoods. Generally speaking, non-competition agreements are enforceable in New York only to the extent necessary to protect the employer's confidential information (e.g., customer lists, formulae, etc.) and otherwise very limited. However, without knowing the nature of your friend's agreement, it cannot be said that she may ignore it with impunity. She should have the agreement reviewed by an attorney.... Read Answer

An attorney should be engaged to review the contract and discuss alternatives. Obviously, with only a few thousand dollars in controversy, it will be difficult to use the judicial system to resolve this kind of matter on a cost-effective basis. You should make every effort to resolve the problem directly with the seller.... Read Answer

It is impossible to know how to answer your question without knowing more about the facts of the case. Generally speaking, since employment in the United States is on an "at will" basis, no damages are collectible by an employee who voluntarily terminates his or her employment. While there are exceptions to this rule, your inquiry does not suggest any facts that would support an alternative basis of recovery. If you wish to sue an employer, you generally will need to start by hiring an attorney. Good luck.... Read Answer

Although it does not particularly matter in this context, corporations do not have partners -- they have stockholders. As a general matter, assuming that the stockholders have executed joint and several guarantees of the lease, and assuming further that the corporation cannot pay any of the liability, and finally assuming that the stockholders have no separate agreement regarding how they will allocate the liability between themselves, then they are each liable for the entire debt. This means, as a practical matter, that the lessor can decide from which stockholder it wants to collect from. It may then be up to the stockholder who pays the lion's share of the debt to sue the other stockholder for contribution. Presumptively, each stockholder may be required to contribute half of the debt, but it is possible that one stockholder may not have the money and the lessor will collect from the other. You should engage the services of an attorney to review the documents and to defend you.... Read Answer

An attorney might be able to negotiate a compromise of this claim for you. As a general matter, when you are a joint and several guarantor of a loan, the lender can collect the entire debt from any guarantor. This is not good for you. The fact that your resources are limited is not good for the bank.... Read Answer

Regardless of whether the co-payee is a bank or not, your "feeling" does not matter if the check was, in fact, not properly indorsed by them. The absence of a required indorsement (or fraud in such an indorsement) renders the item not properly payable. It is impossible to tell the complete circumstances of this situation from your inquiry, but it appears that you should consult with an attorney to review the complete chain of events.... Read Answer

You have a written agreement to pay $1,050, right? The dealer agreed to accept $525. What makes you think you don't have to pay at least $525? In legal terms, it sounds as if you have settled whatever claims you have against the dealer in return for your agreement to a reduced balance. Generally, used personal property is sold "as is."... Read Answer

Anti-fraud and anti-money-laundering procedures of major banks have become a huge headache for many honest people. Unfortunately, the banks' rights with respect to such tools as Quick Pay are governed by a one-sided agreement drafted by the bank to which you agreed before first using the service. You need to read that agreement because it completely controls your rights under these circumstances. The bottom line is that the bank cannot keep the money -- it must either give it to you or return it to the remitter. It could take you months or years to establish which is the right result if you go to court. You should consider asking the remitter to cancel the remittance and re-send by check, PayPal or other means.... Read Answer