BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION
Boston Scientific has filed an action against its competitor, Nuvectra, and three of its former employees (Lynn Takahashi, Gene Zigray, and Jonathan Olsen) who left Boston Scientific to join Nuvectra, alleging that the former employees stole confidential information from Boston Scientific in breach of the employees' employment agreements and duty of loyalty. Boston Scientific and Nuvectra are competitors in the market for neuromodulation devices (neuromodulation generally describes medical therapies that alter neural function to, for example, treat severe chronic pain). Nuvectra is a startup - or, in Boston Scientific's view, an upstart -- that is allegedly trying to break -- or crash -- into the Los Angeles market. The defendants were part of Boston Scientific's core Los Angeles sales team who, according to the complaint, downloaded confidential sales information, including pricing models, that Nuvectra can use to gain a foothold in the Los Angeles market. In addition, the defendants also solicited other members of Boston Scientific's Los Angeles sales team to join them at Nuvectra, allegedly in breach of non-solicitation clauses in their employment agreements.
Estate Planning Gone Awry
BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION
Plaintiffs have filed an action for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and related claims against Fiduciary Trust Company and Charles Platt, alleging that, as financial advisors for the plaintiffs, they constructed a sophisticated plan using complex variable life insurance products to reduce taxes owed by plaintiff Geraldine Zetzel's estate (and thereby increasing the inheritance of plaintiffs Max Kohlenberg and Teresa Kohlenberg, Ms. Zetzel's children). In essence, the life insurance policies, which were purchased by separate insurance trusts in 2000 when Ms. Zetzel was 73 years old, were to result in $5 million of tax-free benefits to the Kohlenberg's upon Ms. Zetzel's death. What the defendants allegedly failed to convey to the plaintiffs, however, was that investments within the insurance products had to maintain a 9.5% rate of return, otherwise the policies would collapse. Unfortunately, until 2016, the defendants had the assets invested in money market funds, having a return of less than 1%, thereby leaving a large shortfall. Plaintiffs have already paid over $2.3 million in premiums on the policies and face a loss of their entire investment unless they can come up with a combined annual premium payment of over $530,000 by November -- which funds the trusts do not have.
