3 total
Ex parte interim injunctions granted; Mareva injunction refused for lack of dissipation risk.
The plaintiffs, an elevator maintenance company and its parent corporation, brought an urgent ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction and other injunctions restraining a former president and CEO, his wife, and their competing corporation from using the plaintiffs' credit cards or funds, soliciting customers or employees, and from making unauthorized changes to corporate governance documents.
The court found extraordinary urgency and a strong prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of corporate funds, misappropriation of corporate opportunity, conspiracy, and breach of a unanimous shareholder agreement.
Interim injunctions were granted restraining the defendants from using corporate funds and soliciting customers and employees, and restraining the individual defendant from altering corporate documents or breaching his fiduciary duties.
The Mareva injunction was refused on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of a serious risk the defendant would remove or dissipate assets before judgment.
Substantial indemnity costs of $900,000 awarded to defendants due to plaintiff's unfounded allegations of misconduct.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The court found that the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of intentional misconduct, fraud, and conspiracy warranted an elevated scale of costs.
The court distinguished a previous decision involving the same plaintiff and awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs fixed at $900,000.
Summary judgment granted dismissing generic drug manufacturer's claims as the Patent Regime operates as a complete code.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for treble damages and double costs under the Statute of Monopolies and common law torts, following the invalidation of the defendants' patent for Viagra.
Relying on a recent coordinate decision, the court found that the Patent Act and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations operate as a complete code, precluding the plaintiff's claims.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff's additional claims for unjust enrichment and nuisance on their merits.
The motion for summary judgment was granted, and both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed.
