Posts tagged "Kobrick"

Crown v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-040-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;         13‑P‑64                                         Appeals Court   MARC CROWN, trustee,[1]  vs.  KOBRICK OFFSHORE FUND, LTD., & others.[2] No. 13‑P‑64. Suffolk.     December 6, 2013.  ‑  April 24, 2014. Present:  Fecteau, Sullivan, & Maldonado, JJ.     Uniform Securities Act.  Securities, Sale.  Consumer Protection Act, Securities transactions.  Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury, Judgment notwithstanding verdict, Summary judgment, Attorney’s fees.  Evidence, Impeachment of credibility, Cross‑examination, Expert opinion, Qualification of expert witness.  Witness, Impeachment, Cross‑examination, Expert.  Contract, Indemnity.  Indemnity.  Public Policy.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 21, 2001.     After review by the Supreme Judicial Court, 442 Mass. 43 (2004), a motion for summary judgment was heard by Ralph D. Gants, J.; the case was tried before Margaret R. Hinkle, J., and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial, and to alter or amend the findings were considered by her.     Philip Y. Brown (Stacie A. Kosinski with him) for the plaintiff. Jeffrey S. Robbins for the defendants.     FECTEAU, J.  This cross appeal involves the plaintiff’s claim under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act (securities act) for misrepresentation, G. L. c. 110A, § 410(a)(2), tried to a jury, and a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, G. L. c. 93A, § 11, tried to a judge; both trials resulted in a judgment for the defendants.  On appeal from the judgment and the denial of three posttrial motions, the plaintiff challenges a number of evidentiary rulings, the jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence.  In their cross appeal from the judgment, the defendants challenge the allowance of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that dismissed their counterclaim for breach of contract.   We discern no abuse of discretion or other error in the evidentiary rulings or jury instructions challenged by the plaintiff, and we see no merit in the plaintiff’s argument that the evidence was insufficient.  As to the defendants’ claim on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly entered because the ground for the defendants’ counterclaim is irreconcilable with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in a related case, Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43 (2004) (Marram I).  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and the orders denying the plaintiff’s posttrial motions. Background.  1.  Procedural history.  This dispute arises from the plaintiff’s investment in the Kobrick Offshore Fund (fund), which […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 24, 2014 at 5:09 pm

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