Events

Is This the End of the FTC’s Noncompete Ban?
When: August 22, 2024
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston
Debate Over Enforcement of FTC’s Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements Continues
When: July 31, 2024
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston
Dallas Federal Court Temporarily Blocks FTC Noncompete Enforcement
When: July 16, 2024
People: Kadeem Wolliaston and Peter A. Lauricella
Texas Federal Court Pumps the Brakes on the FTC’s Noncompete Enforcement
When: July 8, 2024
People: Kadeem Wolliaston and Peter A. Lauricella
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Files Suit Against FTC’s Noncompete Ban
When: April 30, 2024
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston
Is This the End of Noncompete Agreements in the United States?
When: April 24, 2024
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston
Noncompete Agreements Survive for Another Day in New York
When: January 8, 2024
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston
Westlaw Article on Banning Noncompetes in New York by Lauricella and Wolliaston
When: December 18, 2023
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston
Will Governor Hochul Outright Ban Noncompetes in New York?
When: December 12, 2023
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston
Is New York Joining the “Party” to Restrict Noncompete Agreements?
When: June 14, 2023
People: Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston

Publications

Case Closed: How a Well-Drafted Release Shut Down a $1 Million Fraud Claim in Commercial Dispute

Peter Lauricella (Partner-Albany, NY) and Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany, NY) defended a complex commercial matter involving allegations of fraud, disputed ownership interests, and an attempted clawback of nearly $1 million in sale proceeds from a merger agreement. Our client, a private consulting and investment firm, was sued by two individuals who claimed they were each entitled to a 10% ownership interest in the subject company, which was later sold for $9.75 million. The parties had drafted and signed an “Agreement and Mutual Release,” which clearly and unambiguously released our client and its members from any and all claims, rights, causes of action, debts, shares, stock, interests, sums of money, and liabilities, whether known or unknown. Plaintiffs acknowledged they were represented by independent counsel and had entered into the agreement of their own free will. Six weeks after the release was executed and funds returned, our client sold the company to a third party for $9.75 million. The plaintiffs later obtained documentation indicating that negotiations for the sale may have begun prior to the execution of the release, and they filed suit against our client and its principals, seeking to set aside the release on the grounds of fraudulent inducement. In response, Peter and Kadeem moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the plain language of the release and emphasized that the release explicitly covered all potential claims relating to stock, interests, and sums of money, including those that were unknown at the time. Importantly, under established law, a claim for fraudulent inducement cannot survive a broad release unless the plaintiff can allege that the release itself was induced by a separate fraud – something the plaintiffs failed to do. The court agreed and granted our motion to dismiss in full. The ruling reinforces the critical importance of well-drafted releases in commercial transactions and the strong protections they can offer against post-closing disputes. 

Peter A. Lauricella and Kadeem Wolliaston

Semlies and Wolliaston Thwart Motion to Amend Complaint For Nursing/Rehab Center Client

In a New York State Supreme Court case in Schenectady County, attorneys Lori Semlies (Partner-White Plains, New York) and Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany) successfully opposed a motion to amend a complaint in a negligence lawsuit against a rehabilitation and nursing center. The plaintiff had initially filed against the center and several defendants listed by first names or as “John Does.” Despite requesting the center’s help to identify these individuals, the plaintiff was informed that no employees matched those names during the relevant period. The plaintiff later sought to amend the complaint to include the full names discovered from the center’s medical chart, which he had possessed since January 2023. The court denied the amendment, siding with our argument that the plaintiff’s delay in identifying the defendants caused prejudice, as the statute of limitations had expired.

Lori Rosen Semlies and Kadeem Wolliaston

Albany Team's Significant Trial Win Saves Client Tens of Millions

Following a nearly three-week trial, an Albany-based team comprising partners Peter Lauricella and Chris Priore and associates Daniel Lange and Kadeem Wolliaston obtained a favorable decision in New York State Supreme Court, Albany County for our client, an aggregate materials company that owns multiple quarry sites and asphalt plants, which also engages in road construction. 

As background, two first cousins owned a minority shareholder position in each other's companies, but in the mid-1990s, they held different visions for their respective businesses, and tensions arose. In or around 2007, our client’s majority shareholder requested that his shares in his cousin’s business be purchased, and his cousin agreed to do so. In 2014, the cousin died and his son became executor, and demanded an inspection of our client’s records. In late 2015, the son filed a Shareholder's Derivative lawsuit against our client, our client’s majority shareholder and our client’s other directors and related companies alleging that our client was being "looted" in a "grand scheme of fraud" in excess of $3 million a year. In 2019, our client and the other defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion in large part, dismissing every claim in the Complaint, except for one alleging that two employees had been overcompensated. 

In January 2019, the cousin’s son filed another proceeding - a judicial dissolution proceeding pursuant to NY Business Corporation Law (BCL) section 1104-a, claiming that our client’s alleged "oppressive actions" against him warranted the dissolving of the entire company, in which the assets would be liquidated and the proceeds paid out to the shareholders. Under NY's BCL, our client opted to purchase the plaintiff’s shares, triggering a Valuation Proceeding, with experts on each side exchanging their reports. Our experts opined that the company was worth approximately $18 million, which valued the plaintiff’s share at nearly $6 million (after discounts) (although the realistic lowest value was probably closer to $8.5 million). The plaintiff’s valuation team set the worth at more than $58 million, resulting in a value for his shares of more than $22 million – $7 million more than our experts had valued the entire company! 

In a classic “bet the company” case, the court heard more than 25 witnesses and considered some 200 exhibits in this lengthy trial. In the end, the court ruled that the value of the plaintiff’s shares was $10.5 million – far closer to our expert team's value, and a far cry the plaintiff’s $22 million. Ordinarily, New York courts award 9% interest, and judges rarely vary from that. Through some innovative arguments and evidence the Albany team introduced at trial, including how the plaintiff kept these proceedings going for almost eight years, the court awarded interest at only 4.75%, resulting in a savings of more than $2 million for our client!

Peter A. Lauricella, Christopher A. Priore, Daniel J. Lange and Kadeem Wolliaston

Privacy Settings
Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.

These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site