Source: https://www.omtrial.com/business-tort-and-fraud-litigation
Timestamp: 2018-12-10 20:47:10
Document Index: 766984000

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 18', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 38']

Breach of Contract Lawyer in Denver, CO
Find a Breach of Contract Lawyer in Denver, CO
Fraud is a common law tort claim that permits the victim of the fraud to recover his or her losses caused by the deception. To prove fraud, the plaintiff must show that: 1) the defendant made a false representation of a material fact while knowing that representation to be false; 2) the person to whom the defendant made representation was made did not know that the representation was false; 3) the defendant made the false representation with the intent that the plaintiff act upon it; 4) the plaintiff in fact relied upon the false representation; and 5) the plaintiff’s reliance resulted in damage to the plaintiff. Fraud claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(c).
Conversion is a common law tort claim to recover for losses of property misappropriated by another. o recover with a common law claim for conversion, a plaintiff must prove 1) that the plaintiff had the right to ownership or possession of the property in question; 2) the defendant’s wrongful dominion and control over the property; and 3) damages. A claim for conversion is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(h). Civil theft is a statutory version of the common law conversion claim. Colorado’s Rights in Stolen Property statute, C.R.S. § 18-4-405, provides a remedy of three times actual damages plus attorney fees in circumstances where the plaintiff can prove the elements of the crime of theft.
Many states recognize the intentional tort of interference with a prospective business relationship. When determining whether a defendant has improperly interfered with a plaintiff’s business relationship, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that it actually formed a contract. Rather, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the plaintiff’s prospective business relationships, and thus prevented the plaintiff from forming the contract.
The deceptive trade practices statute is found at C.R.S. § 6-1-105(1), and is part of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). The statute identifies certain acts which are considered deceptive trade practices if conducted in the course of trade or commerce. This statute has the possibility of being a particularly powerful tool because, if proven, the successful plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and, if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in bad faith conduct, treble damages. C.R.S. §§ 6-1-113(2)(a) and (b).
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 through 1968, imposes criminal and civil liability upon persons who engage in certain “racketeering activities” as defined in § 1961(1). Section 1962 lists prohibited activities, and almost all of RICO claims against professionals allege a violation of § 1962(c). To successfully state a RICO claim, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege 1) conduct 2) of an enterprise 3) through a pattern 4) of racketeering activity. “Racketeering activity” includes a multitude of illegal acts, including state-law crimes, crimes indictable under federal statute, and certain federal offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). A “pattern of racketeering activity” consists of two or more acts of racketeering activity that have occurred within the last 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
Colorado Organized Crime Control Act.
Colorado’s version of RICO, the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (COCCA), C.R.S. §§ 18-17-101, et seq., is generally patterned after RICO. Like its federal counterpart, COCCA prohibits activities constituting a “pattern of racketeering” to influence an enterprise. C.R.S. § 18-17-104. Under COCCA, any person injured by reason of any prohibited activities listed in C.R.S. § 18-17-104 may maintain a private cause of action.
A fraudulent conveyance is a transfer undertaken by a debtor with intent to place property beyond reach of creditors. The Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-8-101, et seq., governs fraudulent conveyances and provides remedies to the creditor such as, in some cases, 1.5 times the value of asset fraudulently transferred.
The trial attorneys at Ogborn Mihm LLP have decades of experience representing business clients in high-stakes litigation involving business torts. Unlike many business litigation firms, who usually litigate on paper and settle, we have substantial experience trying such cases to juries and judges. We have successfully represented clients in hundreds of jury trials, bench trials and arbitrations involving a wide variety of business disputes.
Ranch owners obtain $1.57 million verdict against real estate broker for fraud in sale of a family ranch – South Dakota (for the Plaintiff)
$70 Million Ponzi Scheme – Settlement (for the Plaintiff)
Susan Jacks represented a bankruptcy trust formed to pursue claims arising out of a real estate fraud scheme that involved 100+ institutional lenders and private investors who provided more than $70 million dollars to the debtors or their straw buyers. The trust sued title companies for (i) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, (ii) breaching their contracts, (iii) fraud, (iv) securities fraud, and (v) breaching their fiduciary duty in the handling of over 1,200 title transactions. After five years of litigation, two sets of defense counsel, and two appeals taken by the defendants, the Susan settled the case favorably to the trust.
Fraud and embezzlement by a company CEO - $632,000 Jury Verdict (for the Plaintiff)
Michael Mihm and Susan Jacks represented a private equity fund who sued the former CEO of one of its companies, along with the CEO’s spouse and brother, for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and embezzlement. After a 10-day trial, during which the defendants filed bankruptcy, a state court jury in Fort Worth, Texas, found the defendants liable for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and civil conspiracy, and awarded damages of $632,000 to our client; the trial court later awarded attorney fees and costs, and other relief. International Beauty Products, LLC vs. Garth Beveridge, Dinah Beveridge and Craig Beveridge, District Court for Tarrant County Texas, 48th Judicial District.
General counsel defends against securities fraud claim (for the Defense)
Victim of consumer fraud and unfair trade practices obtains settlement for fraudulent medical examination (for the Plaintiff)
Executive placement company defends against claims that a CFO embezzled (for the Defense)
Michael Mihm represented a Colorado employment agency that placed a Chief Financial Officer in a construction company. The employee later embezzled from the company, was convicted and sent to prison. The plaintiffs accused the defendant of not conducting a sufficiently thorough background investigation. After a 6-day trial, the jury found in favor of Michael's client. District Court, El Paso County, Colorado
Ponzi Scheme - $1 million recover (for the Plaintiff)
Susan Jacks was appointed as Special counsel representing two chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees of the estates of a real estate developer and his affiliated companies who perpetrated a Ponzi scheme involving straw buyers and promises of “guaranteed returns on investment.” The case involved more than 80 defendants, many of which were early “winners” in the scheme while other late investors and creditors went unpaid. The Trustees recovered more than $1 million for the estates.
Minority owner squeezed out of start-up company - $3.45 million settlement – Utah (for the plaintiff)