Author:

Gibbons Chairman and Managing Director & CCL Department Member Featured on ROI-NJ’s Third Annual “Influencers Power List

Gibbons Chairman and Managing Director & CCL Department Member Featured on ROI-NJ’s Third Annual “Influencers Power List

ROI-NJ, a weekly newspaper covering business in New Jersey, has named Patrick C. Dunican Jr., Chairman and Managing Director of Gibbons P.C. and a member of the firm’s Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department, to its third annual “Influencers Power List” of the professionals with the greatest influence on business in the state. The list ranks New Jersey’s top 30 influencers by number, then features a select group of influential professionals in various fields. Gibbons attorneys have been featured on this list every year it has been published. The firm also has more attorneys on the 2020 list than does any other law firm in New Jersey. Mr. Dunican is one of 19 people on the “Lawyers” list. The publication notes: Oversees what many feel is the state’s most powerful firm. Client list is a who’s who of business and political leaders. Dunican’s deft handling makes him one of the most respected leaders in the sector. Mr. Dunican has been featured on this list every year it has been published. He is also consistently ranked on the PolitickerNJ “Power List” of the 100 most prominent and connected people in New Jersey politics and has been named for ten consecutive years among...

NJBIZ Lists Patrick Dunican and Jennifer Phillips Smith  Among Its 2020 “Power 100”

NJBIZ Lists Patrick Dunican and Jennifer Phillips Smith Among Its 2020 “Power 100”

For the tenth consecutive year, NJBIZ has featured attorneys from Gibbons P.C. on its annual “Power 100” list of the most influential people in New Jersey business. Patrick C. Dunican Jr., the firm’s Chairman and Managing Director, is one of a select few people to be named to this list every year it has been published, while Jennifer Phillips Smith, a Director in the firm’s Real Property Department, makes her debut on the 2020 list. This year, NJBIZ notes of Mr. Dunican: The influence of Gibbons PC, one of the state’s biggest law firms, grew this year with the addition of an office in Red Bank. The 94-year-old Newark firm, which has a Trenton outpost that opened in 2002, expanded to Red Bank because it’s a linchpin of Monmouth County and home to some of its most significant clients—nearly half of the county’s top 10 employers are Gibbons clients. Patrick Dunican has been at the helm since 2004 and his business influence extends internationally: he was recognized in August for promoting business ties between New Jersey and Ireland by Donegal County Council with the 2019 Tip O’Neill Irish Diaspora Award. From 2017 to 2018, exports from the Garden State to...

Gibbons Hosts “Keys to Negotiating Better Software & Software-as-a-Service Agreements” Seminar – June 3-5, 2020

Gibbons Hosts “Keys to Negotiating Better Software & Software-as-a-Service Agreements” Seminar – June 3-5, 2020

From June 3-5, Peter J. Frazza, a Director in the Gibbons Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department, will lead a seminar in New York City analyzing the negotiation of software licenses and software-as-a-service agreements, including data protection and privacy issues companies face that are specific to software transactions, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things (IoT). Mr. Frazza has over 30 years of experience handling complex lawsuits and contract negotiations on behalf of licensees and users in software licensing and software-as-a-service matters. For additional seminar details or to register, click here.

Gibbons Hosts “Keys to Negotiating Better Software & Software-as-a-Service Agreements” Seminar – October 16-18, 2019

Gibbons Hosts “Keys to Negotiating Better Software & Software-as-a-Service Agreements” Seminar – October 16-18, 2019

From October 16-18, Peter J. Frazza, a Director in the Gibbons Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department, will lead a seminar in Las Vegas analyzing the negotiation of software licenses and software-as-a-service agreements, including data protection and privacy issues companies face that are specific to software transactions, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things (IoT). Mr. Frazza has over 30 years of experience handling complex lawsuits and contract negotiations on behalf of licensees and users in software licensing and software-as-a-service matters. For additional seminar details or to register, visit https://conta.cc/31AYf0h.

SCOTUS to Have the Last Word on “Wholly Groundless” Standard for Delegation of Arbitrability

SCOTUS to Have the Last Word on “Wholly Groundless” Standard for Delegation of Arbitrability

If the parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed that an arbitrator should decide whether a dispute is arbitrable, the question of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator. But who should decide arbitrability when the suggestion of arbitrability is so frivolous as to be wholly groundless? Should the party resisting arbitration be required to arbitrate arbitrability before seeking judicial relief? The United States Supreme Court will soon decide. According to the United States Supreme Court, questions of arbitrability are “undeniably . . . issues for judicial determination”—“unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” Thus, when contracting parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed that an arbitrator must decide questions of arbitrability, the parties’ dispute should be sent to an arbitrator in the first instance to determine whether the dispute is arbitrable. Some circuits, however, provide exception to this rule where the argument for arbitrability is “wholly groundless.” In such instances, the parties’ dispute can proceed directly to court without a stop at an arbitrator’s desk. The Fifth Circuit initially adopted this rule in Douglas v. Regions Bank, and most recently applied it in Archer and White Sales Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. In Archer, a dental-equipment distributor sued its...

Gibbons Attorneys Author Article Featured in New Jersey Law Journal

Gibbons Attorneys Author Article Featured in New Jersey Law Journal

Frederick W. Alworth and Jonathan S. Liss, Directors in the firm’s Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department, published the following article in the June 18 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, after a recent decision by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division made it more difficult for shareholders to challenge corporate actions in New Jersey. Is this part of a trend toward making New Jersey more business friendly? The full article can be found here.

Third Circuit Affirms the Dismissal of a Putative Class Action against TD Bank for Failure to Meet Pleading Requirements

Third Circuit Affirms the Dismissal of a Putative Class Action against TD Bank for Failure to Meet Pleading Requirements

Last month, the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of a putative class action against TD Bank, finding that plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations lacked sufficient evidence and failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard for claims that sound in fraud. In MZL Capital Holdings, Inc. et al. v. TD Bank, N.A. et al., two account holders with TD Bank filed a proposed class action accusing the Bank of obscuring its exchange rates and improperly charging an embedded fee for converting foreign currency, thereby defrauding its customers in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of numerous other state consumer-protection laws. TD Bank moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim, and the District Court granted TD Bank’s motion, dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that plaintiffs’ claims were inadequately pled. At the outset, the Court re-affirmed the basic principle that claims brought under the Consumer Fraud Act sound in fraud and therefore must comply with Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement. The Third...

Third Circuit Holds Agreement to Arbitrate in Illusory Forum Is Unenforceable

Third Circuit Holds Agreement to Arbitrate in Illusory Forum Is Unenforceable

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held, in a precedential decision, that when parties enter an agreement directing them to arbitrate in an illusory forum, the forum selection clause is not severable and the entire agreement to arbitrate is unenforceable. In MacDonald v. CashCall, Inc. et al., a plaintiff brought suit on behalf of himself and a putative class, alleging a loan agreement between the parties was unconscionable and usurious. The agreement at issue included “(1) a provision requiring that all disputes be resolved through arbitration conducted by a representative of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (‘CRST’) and (2) a clause that delegates questions about the arbitration provision’s enforceability to the arbitrator.” The defendants moved to compel arbitration. The district court declined to compel arbitration because the agreement at issue expressly disavowed federal and state law, thus rendering the arbitration provisions invalid as an impermissible prospective waiver of federal and state statutory rights. The district court further held that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the forum was illusory, as the selected forum did not conduct arbitrations or have rules for conducting arbitrations. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the loan agreement’s arbitration provision cannot direct...

Third Circuit Awards $10 Million to Plaintiff on Summary Judgment in Recent RICO Case

Third Circuit Awards $10 Million to Plaintiff on Summary Judgment in Recent RICO Case

The Third Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff for more than $10 million in damages on federal and state RICO claims. In the process, the court shed light on what evidence shows an “intent to defraud a financial institution” as required to establish bank fraud. In Liberty Bell Bank v. Rogers, et al., a bank sued an individual and entities he owned and controlled, alleging, among other things, violations of the federal and New Jersey RICO statutes. The bank alleged that the defendants developed a scheme through which they fraudulently obtained loans from the bank and further defrauded it by making payments on the loans using a check-kiting scheme. On a motion for summary judgment – in response to which the individual pro se defendant failed to file a responsive statement of material facts, thereby enabling the court to deem certain facts admitted – the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the bank, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to the bank for more than $10 million, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants appealed, and the Third Circuit affirmed. In particular, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that defendants had...