Higgins Case

Center and the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP. The suit was

Despite the “take it or leave it” offer presented by Hunter Pasteur, the boards attempted to engage in negotiations. We determined that Hunter Pasteur was merely asking for a release in exchange for items that Hunter Pasteur was already legally obligated to perform. The boards walked the grounds and identified numerous areas where areas were not built to plan, not built altogether, missing landscaping, dead trees, etc. The boards created a master spreadsheet of items that we wanted along with anticipated costs. We have attached a copy of our attorney’s letter and the spreadsheet that we prepared that was sent on September 19, 2017. As you can see, the letter did not threaten litigation. It indicated that we would provide the release requested by Hunter Pasteur in exchange for $371,284, which was the boards’ estimated cost of repairs. If Hunter Pasteur does not want to pay the anticipated costs, we are perfectly fine with having them perform the repairs themselves. Rather than responding to our letter, and attempting to work through the issues, Mr. Wertheimer’s decided that it would be better to send an inflammatory letter to the entire community and have his counsel send us acrimonious letters while we were in the process of completing our

Mr. and Mrs. Tim and Natalie McGrew and on behalf of L.M., and any and all of their successors, heirs, and assigns, agree that this Agreement shall be deemed a full and complete settlement, release, and waiver of any and all existing legal claims asserted and unasserted by Parents, L.M., and each of them, against District, its board members, agents, officers, attorneys, and employees, past and present, through and including the date this Agreement is fully executed. This Agreement does not extend to any potential future claims and all Parties to this Agreement retain all rights they may have under state and federal law for future claims.

The parties include Paul Engler and his company, Cactus Feeders Inc.; Texas Beef Group; Maltese Cross Cattle Company; Bravo Cattle Company; Alpha 3 Cattle Company; and Dripping Springs Inc. on the plaintiff side and Oprah Winfrey; Harpo Productions Inc.; and Howard Lyman on the defendant side.

In 2002, two of the defendants Durham and Cochran acquired Fair finance company a successful finance company that earned profits by using proceeds from investors to purchase discounted consumer receivables. After the acquisition of Fair by the defendants, they changed the business model by using a steadily increased amount of investor’s proceeds to finance the unprofitable and failing business controlled by the Durham and Cochran under the disguise of loans –related party transaction or advances, to make interest payment to investors for the benefits of themselves, their families and friends. (SEC litigation release 2012)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590, subdivision (j), Defendant Elizabeth Austin hereby submits her objections to Plaintiffs Lenden Webb and Cherie Webb’s (“Plaintiffs”) proposed Judgment. Ms. Austin also submits a proposed judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

After receiving his first patent for Modtrack, Condrey entered into a licensing agreement with Harrell Equipment. This licensing agreement, and the copyrighted blueprints of the Modtrack system, formed the basis of his lawsuit. In response to Condrey 's allegations, Harrell Equipment filed a cross-complaint against SunTrust asserting that SunTrust: (1) fraudulently induced Harrell Equipment to agree to the March 1999 deal because SunTrust never intended to follow through with the agreement; (2) caused Harrell Equipment to partially perform and thus detrimentally rely on SunTrust 's oral promises; (3) fraudulently converted Harrell Equipment 's property because SunTrust 's foreclosure proceedings involved violations of state law duties regulating professional conduct in foreclosure proceedings; (4) breached its contract with Harrell Equipment when it failed to sell the assets to Vada, the third party purchaser selected by Harrell Equipment; (5) tortiously interfered with Harrell Equipment 's business opportunities during its daily operation of Harrell Equipment; and (6) concealed and destroyed evidence that would support Harrell Equipment 's claims. The magistrate judge found that the conversion and tortious interference with property rights claims were improper collateral attacks on the underlying state court judgments; those judgments terminated Harrell Equipment 's interest in its assets and inventory. The

964 (2010) both parties filed cross motions in District Court seeking summary judgment as to whether

Also in dispute are payments for various line items, toilets, ice and water barriers, stepsons, siding, shingle waste, the starter, and ridge. As a result, there is approximately $126,846.41 in dispute. We propose putting the issues of scope and value of the loss to an appraisal

The plaintiffs in this case asserted the theory of corporation by estoppel to support their claim for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship. Under that theory, if an association that is not an actual corporation or a de facto or de jure corporation holds it out as a corporation, it will be estopped from denying corporate status. This often occurs when a third party contracts with a business entity that claims to be a corporation but does not have a certificate of incorporation. If justice requires, a court will treat an alleged corporation as if it were an actual corporation to determine liability in a particular situation. This occurred here—BSC did not have its certificate before Mayor signed the lease on its behalf. The court initially issued a summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, but later vacated that judgment, and on appeal, a state intermediate appellate court affirmed the order to vacate. The appellate court acknowledged that “a corporation which has not yet been formed normally lacks capacity to enter into a contract” but applied the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel.

I hope this letter finds you well. I am pleased to inform you that Showboat Majestic LLC, represented by the two partners Mr. Joshua Steele and Mr. Tim Swallow has contacted our office with a settlement offer. This letter will explain you in detail the terms of the offer, the advantages and disadvantages of the settlement offer and also what are the alternatives if you choose to reject this offer.

We hereby certify that we have no undisclosed interest in the property and our employment and compensation are not contingent upon our findings. This study is subject to the comments made throughout this report and to all assumptions and limiting conditions set forth herein. The conclusions presented in this report are based upon the information available and received at the time the report was filed. NHCG has taken every possible precaution to evaluate this information for its complete accuracy and reliability. Parts of this report were prepared or arranged by third-party contributors, as indicated throughout the document. While third-party contributions have been reviewed by NHCG for reasonableness and consistency for including in this report, third-party information has not

We re-traded that since we last talked to you. So we are going to agree that Ms. Moore will keep all of the movables currently in her possession. She -- we’ve already spoken about Pirkle and Arrowhead Hills in terms of the business entities. She will also get the remaining movables in her possession. The parties are going to waive reciprocally all claims relative to reimbursement. They are going to waive reciprocally all claims relative to rental and any claims for alleged mismanagement under -- we call the 2354, but I think Mr. Kitchens and I both agree that’s probably more attributable to a 2369 Post-Termination Claim under the Civil Code. Further, business operations of the facility, either way, we are agreeing by this compromise those

To effectively resolve the dispute between The Masons’ and Rivertown and Gregory Ford & Chrysler, LLC, specific elements of the business law must be considered. After reviewing the details of this case, we will determine whether the Masons were unjustly enriched or if R&G was at fault for tort of conversion. Gaining insight on Georgia contract requirements will be a deciding factor, in whether this case can be settled through arbitration, or if it should be disputed in court through formal litigation.

Having concluded that the July 7, 2009 settlement agreement is enforceable and binds the parties, we must then interpret the terms of that agreement. “Settlement agreements are enforceable as independent contracts, subject to the same general rules of construction that apply to other contracts.” Maslow v. Vanguri, 168 Md. App. 298, 316 (2006). We begin by observing that the interpretation of a contract is a question of law subject to de novo review. Spacesaver Sys., Inc. v. Adam, 440 Md. 1, 7 (2014). Moreover, in Maryland, we employ the objective theory of contracts, under which: