Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Chicago-based Gardner Carton & Douglas has been hit with a $17.2 million jury verdict for failing to protect the interests of a shareholder allegedly pushed out of a high-tech company that hired the law firm to handle corporate matters. The verdict stems from a case filed by a 50% shareholder of a satellite telecommunications company who asserted that attorneys with Gardner Carton “cast their lot” with the other 50% shareholder after a dispute arose between the two owners. The lawsuit, filed in the state circuit court for Prince George’s County, Md., alleged legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference against Gardner Carton, which, the plaintiff charged, was obligated to represent the company as a whole. The case demonstrates the conflicts resulting when disputes arise among equal shareholders owners in companies that hire law firms to represent the interests of the entity, not the individuals. “The real concern is that attorneys always have to ask themselves who is their client and what is the obligation,” said the plaintiff’s attorney, Creighton Magid, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney. In a written statement, Gardner Carton & Douglas Chairman Harold L. Kaplan called the jury’s verdict “disappointing.” He said the firm “had an engagement letter . . . which clearly stated that GCD was representing the company, not the shareholders individually, and that GCD would be taking direction from the officers of the corporation in the order of the corporate hierarchy.” The statement also said that the trial court “reserved ruling on many significant legal issues challenging the jury’s finding.” The firm, represented at trial by Piper Rudnick, plans to file post-trial motions. Plaintiff Michael Ahan and the other 50% shareholder, Nader Modanlo, were owners of now-bankrupt Final Analysis Inc., which owned the majority of voting stock of another company, Final Analysis Communications Services. Both companies were involved in the 1990s with the development of satellite tracking systems. The companies were once valued at more than $550 million, Magid said. In 1998, disputes arose between the two men and they decided to restructure the companies, the plaintiff’s amended complaint said. Ahan claimed that although Gardner Carton was hired to act as outside general counsel, it drafted bylaws and contracts that left him disenfranchised and were designed to give his partner to full control of the companies.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.