David Wires

Following a damages inquiry in which the defendants were awarded damages including legal costs, the defendants sought additional partial indemnity costs for a prior recusal motion.

The court determined that the costs associated with the recusal motion had already been included in the damages award for legal costs following review of the defendants’ docketed accounts.

Because those costs were already compensated in the earlier award, they could not be recovered again.

The court therefore dismissed the belated request for additional costs and declined to award further costs for the present dispute.

The defendants sought over $100 million in damages following a damages inquiry ordered after the plaintiffs wrongfully obtained ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders that shut down the defendants' lottery telemarketing business.

The court found that most of the financial losses and lost business opportunities were caused by an American Temporary Restraining Order that pre-dated the ex parte orders, not the ex parte orders themselves.

However, the court awarded $250,000 for the loss of an opportunity to transition the business in an orderly fashion, $1,000 for a seized cell phone, and $703,576 for legal expenses incurred in setting aside the orders and participating in the inquiry, for a total award of $954,576.

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment declaring that no binding contract existed for a nationwide roll‑out of a stored value “Tim Card” payment system and that they had not misused confidential information obtained during a pilot program.

The defendants alleged that a binding agreement had been reached or, alternatively, that the plaintiffs breached confidentiality obligations and a duty to negotiate in good faith after abandoning negotiations and conducting an RFP process.

The court held that the evidence showed only an agreement in principle and ongoing negotiations, not a finalized contract, as material terms remained unresolved and the parties’ conduct did not demonstrate a binding commitment.

The court also found no misuse of confidential information, concluding that the operational data from the pilot project belonged to the restaurant chain and did not constitute protectable confidential information of the technology vendor.

However, genuine issues remained regarding whether the plaintiffs breached a contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith.