CONTRACT. $______ VERDICT

• Pages: 8-9

Verdicts by Category

CONTRACT

$25,750 VERDICT

Contract –Plaintiff contends $25,750 lent to

defendant that owns construction company, and

defendant opines that alleged loan was a gift –

Bench trial.

Somerset County, NJ

The plaintiff sought $25,750 allegedly lent to the

defendant and was not paid back. The defendant

denied that the money was borrowed, and

maintained that it was a gift provided by the

plaintiff –a friend. The defendant opined that his

company was not in significant need for an

infusion of cash, and that this factor supported his

position that the money was not a loan. The

plaintiff countered by introducing documentary

evidence that he supported his position that the

company was having significant financial

difficulties, and denied that the defendant’s claims

should be accepted.

The plaintiff also maintained that documents be-

tween the parties should be interpreted to reflect that

a loan, and not a gift, was contemplated.

The court found for the plaintiff and awarded

$27,500.

REFERENCE

Kelly vs. Toresco, et al. Docket no. SOM-L-534-06;

Judge Anthony Picheca.

Attorney for plaintiff: Marco M. Benucci of M

Benucci,LLC in Raritan, NJ.

$519,000 VERDICT

Contract –Plaintiff asks for severance package if

she loses her job and advised that only equity

agreement is available –When plaintiff is

replaced two years after hired, her shares are

valueless.

Morris County, NJ

This action was brought by a plaintiff, then 55

years old, who was hired by the defendant

company that was owned by a private equity

company. The business model involved

purchasing companies, increasing the revenues,

and then selling the companies within three to

five years. The plaintiff named the former CEO of

the candy company on a breach of contract

theory, and the principle of the private equity

company on a theory of fraud.

The plaintiff – who had an MBA – advised the com-

pany that hired her at the time that she was con-

cerned about losing her job when he was in her late

50’s and asked for a severance package. The plaintiff

was told that the company does not offer severance

packages, but that she would be given 2% equity in

the company. This promise was contained in written

correspondence sent to her at the time she was

hired. The evidence revealed that two years after the

plaintiff was hired, a new CEO came on board, and

since he wanted to bring his own team, the plaintiff

was advised that despite good performance, she

would be let go.

The plaintiff subsequently received a letter from the

company that reflected that her stock was common

stock, and that since there was not enough money to

purchase the $30,000,000 in preferred stock that had

been issued, her stock was worthless. She opined that

the written agreement made no reference for pre-

ferred vs. common stock, and argued that the defen-

dant’s position should be rejected. The plaintiff

maintained that the former CEO was liable for

breach of contract, and that the principal of the pri-

vate equity company was liable for fraud. The defen-

dant maintained that such a distinction should be

interpreted as being in the in the contract. The plain-

tiff’s economist valued the company at

approximately $15,000,000.

The plaintiff introduced evidence that a high ranking

officer was of the opinion that the company had a

value of $25,000,000, and that she should be

awarded 2% of this amount.

The plaintiff also maintained that at the time she was

hired, she was told that details regarding the stock

agreement would follow, but since it never was never

done; the email of her obtaining 2% – which did not

mention the type of stock – should be considered the

contract. The plaintiff also established that the former

CEO had conveyed her request for more details to

principle of the private equity company, but that the

details were still not provided.

Volume 36, Issue 2, July 2015 Subscribe Now

8