Posts tagged "Alpha"

Fletcher Fixed Income Alpha Fund, Ltd., et al. v. Grant Thornton LLP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-085-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

15-P-830                                        Appeals Court

FLETCHER FIXED INCOME ALPHA FUND, LTD., & another[1]  vs.  GRANT THORNTON LLP & others.[2]

No. 15-P-830.

Suffolk.     January 6, 2016. – July 14, 2016.

Present:  Cypher, Grainger, & Meade, JJ.

AuditorPractice, Civil, Motion to dismiss.  Jurisdiction, Nonresident, Long-arm statute.  Due Process of Law, Jurisdiction over nonresident.  Negligence, Misrepresentation, Proximate cause.  Proximate Cause. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 18, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Hugenberger, et al. v. Alpha Management Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-087-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

12‑P‑1788                                       Appeals Court

CHRIS HUGENBERGER & another[1]  vs.  ALPHA MANAGEMENT CORP.

No. 12‑P‑1788.      June 28, 2013.

Consumer Protection Act, Demand letter.

The plaintiffs appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department (BMC) affirming the trial judge’s allowing the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and ordering the entry of judgment for the defendant.  The trial judge concluded that “the failure to offer the [G. L. c.] 93A demand letter, proof of a required element in the plaintiffs’ case, was a fatal mistake.”  The plaintiffs claim error in this ruling on the ground that they were not required, in the circumstances, to offer the demand letter in evidence and that the failure to do so was not manifestly wrong so as to allow the judge to reconsider his earlier denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed finding.  As we disagree, we affirm. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 28, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,