Marathon Winner Gives Medal to City of Boston
Marathoners spend countless hours training to compete in races, and for elite runners like Ethiopian Lelisa Desisa, the goal is to come away with the medal for top finisher. But compelled by the tragedy that claimed three lives and injured hundreds of others after he won the 2013 Boston Marathon, Desisa gave that medal he worked to win to the city Sunday. Desisa honored Boston in a ceremony on Boston Common shortly after the completion of the Boston Athletic Association (BAA) 10K, the first BAA event since the Boston Marathon Bombings. “We promise next year, in 2014, we will return to Boston to show the world that our commitment to sport, our commitment to our freedom is stronger than any act of violence,” said Desisa Sunday through a letter he wrote translated into English. Desisa added that “sports should never be used as a battleground” and offered his “heartfelt condolences” to those who were gravely impacted by the bombings. Mayor Thomas Menino was on hand to accept the medal from Desisa and thanked him for his generosity. “Thank you for your symbol of gratitude to help us,” he said. Watch the video above for more. South End Patch
Boston Marathon Winner Giving Medal to City
Lelisa Desisa, the Ethiopian runner who won the 2013 Boston Marathon hours before bomb blasts killed three and injured hundreds at the finish line, will be giving his medal to the City of Boston in a ceremony on Boston Common Sunday. According to a statement on the Boston Athletic Association website, Desisa will give the medal to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino at 10 a.m. on the common near Charles Street. Desisa is giving the medal to the city on behalf of all Boston Marathon runners to honor bombing victims and their families. Desisa said the bombings “brought pain to many families and tremendous sorrow into many homes” and that he was giving his medal to the city “as a gesture of my solidarity with the victims of this senseless act of violence,” according to the statement. He announced his intention to give his medal to Boston at a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last month. Menino said in the statement that “countless acts of kindness and generosity have lifted our spirits and inspired us” since the bombings, this being one of them. “On behalf of the City of Boston, we thank Lelisa for his thoughtful and moving gesture,” Menino said. Desisa will be participating in the B.A.A. 10K prior to the ceremony. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
Chambers, et al. v. Gold Medal Bakery, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-020-13)
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 SJC‑11231 MICHELE LeCOMTE CHAMBERS[1] & others[2] vs. GOLD MEDAL BAKERY, INC. & others.[3] Bristol. October 4, 2012. ‑ February 8, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Corporation, Board of directors, Close corporation, Derivative action, Officers and agents, Stockholder. Privileged Communication. Evidence, Privileged communication, Privileged record. Practice, Civil, Subpoena. Subpoena. Fiduciary. Attorney at Law, Attorney‑client relationship, Communication with represented party, Work product. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 3, 2009. A motion for a protective order was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. John N. Love (Anthony A. Froio with him) for the defendants. Howard M. Cooper (Heidi A. Nadel & Kimberly E. Dean with him) for the plaintiffs. SPINA, J. The issue presented in this appeal is whether a closely-held corporation and its corporate counsel and accountants can assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection against directors-shareholders asserting claims against the corporation and its directors. Because there is sufficient evidence that the plaintiffs’ interests are adverse to the interests of the corporation as concerns the 2007 and present litigations, we conclude that the plaintiffs are not entitled to privileged or protected information relating to the two litigations. Background and procedure. We recount the facts in particular detail because of their significance to the disposition of this case. The story leading to the present appeal begins with two brothers who were in the bakery business together. The brothers each owned fifty per cent of two closely-held companies (collectively, Gold Medal), which have grown into major suppliers of wholesale bakery products in New England. The individual parties to the present action are split along family lines, with each side of the litigation representing the legacy of one of the brothers. On one side are Georgette LeComte and Michele LeComte Chambers, respectively widow and daughter of one of the brothers, who together own fifty per cent of Gold Medal stock. Both joined Gold Medal’s four-seat board of directors in 2008, assuming two of the four, or fifty per cent, of the seats. Georgette since has been replaced as director by her designee, Michael Kehoe. These three individuals are the plaintiffs. On the other side of the […]
Chambers, et al. v. Gold Medal Bakery, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-020-13)
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 11‑P‑281 Appeals Court MICHELE LeCOMTE CHAMBERS[1] & others[2] vs. GOLD MEDAL BAKERY, INC., & others.[3] No. 11‑P‑281. Bristol. October 1, 2012. ‑ February 5, 2013. Present: Cypher, Katzmann, & Milkey, JJ. Arbitration, Appeal of order compelling arbitration. Corporation, Close corporation. Contract, Arbitration, Construction of contract. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 3, 2009. A motion to stay litigation and to compel arbitration was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J. Brian A. Davis for Roland S. LeComte & another. Heidi A. Nadel (Kimberly Dean & Christopher R. O’Hara with her) for the plaintiffs. MILKEY, J. Defendant Gold Medal Bakery, Inc. (Gold Medal), is a large-scale bakery based in Fall River that supplies bread and other baked goods to supermarket chains throughout the northeast. It is a closely-held corporation whose ownership is split evenly between two branches of the LeComte family. The plaintiffs collectively own half of the shares, with the remaining half held by defendant Roland S. LeComte and his sister-in-law Florine LeComte (not a party). Roland S. and his son, defendant Brian R. LeComte, manage Gold Medal’s operations. The plaintiffs allege that Roland S. and Brian, together with others, committed a variety of corporate misdeeds. A subset of the defendants sought to compel arbitration of some of the underlying dispute and to stay the entire litigation pending resolution of the arbitration. A Superior Court judge denied their motion, ruling that the agreement under which the defendants had moved for arbitration was no longer of any force and effect. In this interlocutory appeal, see G. L. c. 251, § 18(a) (1), we affirm, albeit on different grounds. A. Background. 1. Early history. Gold Medal was founded in 1912 by Auguste LeComte. Auguste had two sons, Leonidas (Leo) and Roland A. (father of Roland S.). The plaintiffs trace their ownership interests to that of Leo, while Roland S. and Florine trace theirs to that of Roland A. Joined as a defendant is a second family business known as Bakery Products Corp. (Bakery Products). Bakery Products is involved in the distribution of Gold Medal’s products, and it receives commissions on such sales. From what appears in the record, the management of the two affiliated companies has been intertwined. 2. 1981 succession plans. By 1981, Roland A. had died, and […]