Source: http://www.davismalm.com/?t=3&A=7818&format=xml&p=7240
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:52:43+00:00

Document:
Josh Grossman is a trial lawyer practicing in the Business Law and Litigation areas. He represents clients in commercial litigation matters in federal and state trial and appeals courts. Josh has significant experience representing businesses of all sizes in a variety of corporate disputes, including breach of fiduciary duty, shareholder and partnership issues, controversies arising under information privacy, data security and cybersecurity laws, and misappropriation of trade secrets. He represents businesses, developers, and individuals involved in real estate litigation, including construction, land use, environmental issues, insurance coverage actions, and collection of condominium fees. He also regularly represents physicians appearing before the Board of Medicine.
Prior to joining Davis Malm, Josh clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf and the late U.S. Court of Appeals First Circuit Judge Congrad K. Cyr.
Representing the City of Boston in an appeal regarding the installation of a natural gas pipeline.
Successfully represented homeowners in a complex insurance coverage claim resulting in the insurance company paying for damage claims it initially rejected.
Frequently requested to serve as local counsel in complex and multi-state litigation matters in state and federal courts.
Successfully defended a former shareholder in a corporate freeze-out matter.
Prosecuting a former executive regarding violations of computer hacking laws and misappropriation of company data and trade secrets.
Successfully defended a physician beore the Board of Medicine involving claims of overprescribing medication to patients and sexual misconduct with a patient.
Successfully challenged the validity of a deathbed marriage in a contested Probate Court matter, resulting in the marriage being voided.
Counsel in a precedent-setting products liability trial against Lorillard Tobacco Co., one of the largest cigarette manufacturers in the world, winning a $152 million verdict for a woman who died after becoming addicted to smoking because the company regularly distributed free cigarettes to her and other schoolchildren in Roxbury, Massachusetts. Read more.
Represent a publicly traded company in commercial property insurance coverage action and prevailed on plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on whether policies covered hurricane clean-up expenses and related losses.
Represent shareholders in litigation over the scope of a stock transfer restriction.
Represented minority shareholders in successful shareholder derivative action to unwind a self-dealing transaction by corporate management.
Representation of condominium associations in the collection of outstanding condominium common expenses from delinquent condominium unit owners under G.L. c. 183A.
Defense of developer in copyright infringement action involving architectural drawings for condominium complex.
Representation of a telecommunication services provider in action against landlord to enforce noncompetition covenants of commercial lease.
Representation of a minority shareholder of grocery distribution company in freeze out action.
Representation of a trust beneficiary in an action against trustees for self-dealing and breach of trust.
Representation of a developer of single family homes in negligent workmanship action against site sub-contractor.
Representation of a supermarket chain in opposing certiorari petition to Supreme Court of the United States in Kettenbach v. Demoulas, et al.
Representation of an inventor in arbitration of patent royalty dispute regarding a medical device.
Representation of a purchaser of a bus line in breach of contract action against seller.
Representation of a powerboat owner in action against marine casualty insurer for failure to provide coverage and violations of M.G.L. c. 176D and against insurance agency for malpractice.
Evans v. Lorillard, 2004-2840-B (Mass. Super., September 1, 2011) - Obtained judgment on 93A claim pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act in precedent-setting wrongful death case, in which judgment in excess of $200 million (including interest) entered in favor of estate of individual smoker against tobacco company.
Boylan v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co., 25 Mass.L.Rptr. 209, 2009 WL 765404 (Mass. Super. Jan. 23, 2009) - Prevailed at evidentiary hearing invalidating vote of ostensibly independent corporate directors to dismiss shareholder derivative suit challenging propriety of self-dealing transaction entered into by the company’s officers, controlling shareholders and directors, and to ratify the challenged transaction after-the-fact. Successfully established that the directors, at the time they voted to dismiss the suit and ratify the transaction, did not meet the three-tiered test established in Houle v. Low, 407 Mass. 810 (1990) for scrutinizing the good faith, independence and thoroughness of directors who vote to exonerate corporate insiders where a majority of the board has a financial interest in the transaction.
Kurker v. Shoestring Properties Limited Partnership, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 644 (2007) - Successfully overturned decision of trial court on appeal and obtained order requiring adverse party to convey marina property to client.
Boylan v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co., WL 836753 (Mass. Super. Mar. 16, 2007) - Successfully opposed summary judgment motion in shareholder derivative lawsuit challenging self-dealing transactions of corporate officers, directors, and controlling shareholders. Vote of disinterested members of board of directors to terminate the pending lawsuit is equivalent of vote of a special litigation committee and is held to heightened standard of review established by SJC in Houle v. Low, 407 Mass. 810 (1990). Directors must be independent, unbiased, and act in good faith in voting to terminate derivative lawsuit.
Haufler v. Zotos, 446 Mass. 489 (2006) - Successfully represented property owner in statutory civil rights claim where the client's neighbor had interfered with client's right to use and develop his property.
Keating v. Keating, 17 Mass. L. Rptr. 241 (2003) - Successfully prosecuted action for freeze out of minority shareholder by controlling shareholder.
Workgroup Technology Corp. v. MGM Grand, LLC, 246 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.Mass. 2003) – In this federal court action, Workgroup Technology prevailed against MGM Grand's motion to dismiss or to transfer the case to Nevada, which would have been a costly and inconvenient forum for our Massachusetts-based client. The case settled thereafter.
Demoulas v. Demoulas, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 456 (2003) - Concerning the methodology and principles applicable to tax deductions in the context of a disgorgement remedy.
Distinctions: Peer Review BV® Distinguished™ rated by Martindale-Hubbell, the second highest bestowed rating; Massachusetts Super Lawyers, 2013-2018; Massachusetts Super Lawyers Rising Stars, 2006-2012.
Admitted: Massachusetts; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Member: Massachusetts Bar Association; American Bar Association.
Red Auerbach Youth Foundation: Vice President.
Seven Davis Malm Attorneys Named 2011 Massachusetts "Super Lawyers Rising Stars"
Six Davis Malm Attorneys Named 2010 Massachusetts "Super Lawyers Rising Stars"
Four Davis Malm Attorneys Named 2009 Massachusetts "Super Lawyers Rising Stars"
Six Davis Malm Attorneys Named 2008 Massachusetts "Super Lawyers Rising Stars"
J.D., Boston College Law School, 1999.
B.A., Philosophy (with honors), Colgate University, 1996.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.