Blog

Pringle presents at Monmouth University Climate Adaptation Conference

PQA Managing Partner Ken Pringle gave a presentation at the Climate Change Conference held at Monmouth University on January 15, 2010, on the panel discussing Potential Impact on Coastal Communities: Response & Adaptation Strategies. The conference was sponsored by the Monmouth Ocean Development Council, the Jersey Shore Partnership and Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute. Pringle, who is also the mayor of Belmar, is a member of the Urban Coast Institute’s Advisory Committee. His presentation outlined Belmar’s five-step blueprint for assessing the Borough’s vulnerabilities to storm damage and other emergencies, coordinating resources between departments and other agencies, and developing prompt and effective communication strategies for keeping residents informed and prepared.

Pringle speaks on EPA Climate Change Panel

On June 8, 2010, PQA managing partner Ken Pringle spoke on the opening stakeholders panel of EPA’s three-day national conference, “Resilient Water Management Strategies for a Changing Climate: Developing Decision-Support Tools for Local Communities.” The bi-coastal conference was held simultaneously by teleconference to live audiences in EPA’s Region 2 office in New York City and Region 9 office in San Francisco, and broadcast nationally via webinar. Pringle, who has served for 20 years as the mayor of Belmar, NJ, spoke about the steps that his coastal community has taken to prepare for the impacts of climate change.

The panel followed a keynote address by Andy Resnick, who writes the New York Time’s Dot Earth blog. Other panel members included: Aaron Koch, Policy Advisor, New York City Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability; Jay Bloomfield, Chief of Inland Lakes and Fresh Waters, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Susanne DeRoches, Sustainable Design Manager, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and Rebecca Weidman, Director of Water Resource Protection, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

Appellate Division Upholds PQA’s Win in Dismissal of $245 Million Suit

On March 16, 2010, the Appellate Division handed down a per curiam opinion in which the court upheld Superior Judge Daniel M. Waldman’s earlier dismissal of a suit that sought $245 million in damages from PQA’s client. PQA was first retained in July 2008 to defend the highly-publicized case, which was brought by the shareholders of a subsidiary of the client’s former employer, an international securities firm that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange. The suit alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and based its claim of $245 million in damages on changes in price of the shares of the publicly traded parent corporation, which change plaintiffs’ contended was attributable to the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. See below for a further discussion of the case. The Appellate Division issued a 13-page opinion in support of its decision, affirming the dismissal for the reasons relied upon by Judge Waldman below. PQA partner Ken Pringle argued the case on appeal.

PQA Wins Dismissal of $245 Million Suit

PQA won a stunning victory on April 22, 2009 in a civil matter pending before Judge Daniel M. Waldman in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Monmouth County, in which the plaintiffs were seeking $245 million in damages from PQA’s client. PQA was retained in July 2008 to defend a client in a highly-publicized case brought in Monmouth County by the shareholders of a subsidiary of his former employer, an international securities firm that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange. The suit alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and based its claim of $245 million in damages on changes in price of the shares of the publicly traded parent corporation, which change plaintiffs’ contended was attributable to the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The allegations in the New Jersey action mirrored allegations that were the subject of an earlier filed New York matter as well as those asserted in an arbitration proceeding before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). PQA’s client was separately represented in those matters by Stephen Harmon and Matthew Aaronson, Esquires, of the New York City office of Troutman Sanders, LLP. Before the plaintiffs could commence discovery in New Jersey, PQA moved to dismiss the New Jersey action on three grounds: (1) the filing of the suit in New Jersey violated the forum selection clauses contained in the shareholders agreement, option agreement and employment contract to which the parties were bound; (2) the New Jersey court should defer to the courts of New York pursuant to the first-filed doctrine, as recently enunciated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Sensient Colors, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., Inc., 193 N.J. 373 (2008); and (3) that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims against PQA’s client because the claims they asserted were derivative of the claims of the corporation of which they were shareholders, and could only be brought directly by that entity. On April 22, 2009, Judge Waldman handed down a 31-page opinion, deciding in favor of PQA’s client on each of the above three issues, and dismissing the case in its entirety. PQA Managing Partner Ken Pringle argued the motion before the Court, and was assisted on the brief by PQA Associate Denise O’Hara.

PQA wins $233,000 fee award against chiro who engaged in delaying tactics

On April 23, 2010, the Honorable Robert J. Brennan, J.S.C., Morris County, sided with PQA attorney Kathy Waldron and ordered the chiropractor, who is the lead defendant in a 6-year-old suit brought under the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, to reimburse PQA’s insurer client $233,323.39 in legal fees and costs incurred in connection with a motion for partial summary judgment.   The Appellate Division had remanded the case for a re-hearing on the summary judgment motion, but granted PQA leave to seek fees on behalf of its client, because of the extraordinary circumstances created by the defendant’s pattern of delay and obfuscation in the litigation.