A Different Perspective
Kublanovsky Law successfully vacated a $230,000 judgment against a Canadian company in an action currently pending in New York State Supreme Court. Kublanovsky Law prevailed on its motion to vacate the six-figure judgment against its client, Oriole Media Corp., in an action brought by Mediaocean, LLC. Kublanovsky Law continues to defend Oriole Media in the ongoing litigation.
Eugene Kublanovsky will be presenting on IP Considerations in Business Divorces to the International Intellectual Property Society (IIPS) on June 14, 2018. Eugene will discuss business “break-ups” and the affect they have on a business’s intellectual property assets. The presentation will also address how business owners can best avoid problems which could imperil their ongoing interests in these assets when a business partnership fails, as well as provide practical tips for advising clients who already find themselves litigating a messy business separation. A description of the program follows:
Business partners have the best intentions when building a company. They endeavor towards success, but failures and “break-ups” are much more common than IPOs. An often overlooked issue is what will happen to a company’s IP assets—for example, its trademarks, copyrights, patents, or trade secrets—afterwards? If both partners want to proceed in business, just not together, a dispute over the trademark(s) or trade secret(s) may be brewing. Some remedies include rebranding, segmentation, co-existence, and territorial separation. Alternately, if a business owns copyrightable source code or patents, which may be valuable in the future, the valuation of such assets may be difficult to calculate and lead to litigation. Remedies to this situation may include different forms of internal auction, payments for winding up expenses, or even “silent investor” ownership in an IP holding company going forward. Our presentation will address these concerns, including suggestions for advising clients on how they can avoid such problems and potentially head off litigation, and provide practical tips for advising clients who already find themselves in court litigating a messy business divorce.
Kublanovsky Law successfully secured a $137,541 judgment for a client who was a victim of a Ponzi scheme. The Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo, of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in the case Birdsall v. Rivera, et al., found Defendants liable for promoting and selling a fraudulent investment product to the Plaintiff. Defendants’ marketed their “investment” strategy, called Robbins Lane, as a lucrative and secure investment in Pennsylvania which was focused on developing commercial and other real estate properties. Defendants targeted mostly older and elderly clients and induced many of them to invest in Robbins Lane, representing it as a legitimate and secure investment strategy and promising significant returns. However, as described in an SEC complaint filed in March 2016 against several of the same Defendants, Robbins Lane was a quintessential Ponzi scheme developed to fleece unsuspecting investors. As alleged in the SEC complaint, Defendants Daniel Rivera and Matthew Rivera “engaged in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme, where Daniel Rivera falsely promised investors they would share in the profits of Robbins Lane, a real estate venture that bought, redeveloped and sold properties. In fact, Robbins Lane, which was owned by Matthew Rivera, was a sham. Daniel Rivera and Matthew Rivera misappropriated investor funds for their personal benefit.” The SEC complaint further alleged that “Daniel Rivera preyed on a number of elderly, unsophisticated investors, at times recommending that they liquidate other holdings, including retirement assets, to invest in Robbins Lane.” The SEC complaint concluded that ““Robbins Lane never had any employees and engaged in no operations. Robbins Lane never ‘redeveloped’ any real estate, nor did it pursue any real estate investment activities designed to generate returns for its investors. During the entire time that Daniel Rivera was raising money from investors, Robbins Lane never sold or even attempted to sell any real estate. Robbins Lane was instead used as a vehicle to defraud primarily elderly investors in order to enrich Daniel Rivera, Matthew Rivera, as well as their family and associates.” Shortly after the SEC filed its complaint, Defendants consented to a final judgment being entered against them in the SEC action. Kublanovsky Law subsequently commenced a civil lawsuit against Defendants for their role in fleecing the Plaintiff of his retirement savings.
Kublanovsky Law, representing a defendant in a commercial litigation in New York State Court, today successfully opposed a motion seeking a pre-judgment attachment, temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and expedited discovery against his client. Eugene D. Kublanovsky was able to secure on his client’s behalf an order from the court denying all of Plaintiffs’ requested relief. The matter, GF55 Partners, et al. v. Shane, et al., is currently pending in the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court, New York County.
