BATNA doesn’t get you to settlement or resolution – instead, looking for answers does –

BATNA is an acronym that stands for Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. It is defined as the best or most advantageous alternative that a negotiating or mediating party can take or has if negotiations and reaching settlement or resolution are failing or are not moving forward and if it is believed that settlement is breaking down cannot be reached. BATNA was presented in the book Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (first published in 1981), and it continues to be used as a consideration that a negotiating or mediating party can and should use when deciding whether or not to engage in negotiation or mediation, or whether or not to continue negotiating or mediating when things seem to have stalled or reached an impasse.

Whereas considering BATNA (i.e., why a party should negotiate or keep negotiating) is a good means of moving the parties or a party back from a precipice or position wherein negotiations or mediation breakdown or breakdown at least temporarily, BATNA doesn’t get you to settlement – instead, moving beyond or back from BANTA, being openminded, continuing to explore options, looking for answers, considering the negatives and unknowns, and moving forward toward resolution do move the parties toward settlement and resolution or at least in part on some of the issues.

Thus, the parties, and the mediator need to consider the toolbox of options, and approaches and ways for the parties to continue talking and moving forward from the current position and from their current positions toward resolution or resolutions.

Parties can move off of their positions – or can be willing or induced to move off of their positions, by any number of means, such as, for example:

Persuasion;

Moving within the or their perceived global range of options;

Expanding the or their global range of options;

Disclosing or making known more about or what was previously known about their global range of options;

Force or threat, so to speak;

Changed circumstances;

Optics or disclosure to or about outside stakeholders or influencers;

Additional examination, discovery, evidence or related information, documents, or disclosure;

Additional understanding about the applicable law, burdens of proof, and presumptions;

Additional information about the possible trier of fact; and

More – that is, the long list depends on the particular situation at issue.

Best to you. David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

Business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Workplace, Investigations, Other Areas

Conservatorship of the Estate of Brokken – Probate Court could not award attorneys’ fees when a conservator was not appointed – plus Tate comments, and a video about mediating conservatorship disputes and cases

Conservatorship of the Estate of Brokken, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District Division Six (March 15, 2021) 2d Civ. No. B303898 (Super. Ct. No. 17PR00194) (Santa Barbara County).

Summary. A petition for the conservatorship of Doris Mae Brokken was filed by her adult children over Doris’ strong objection. It was alleged that Doris suffered from ongoing mental health issues and that her behavior had become increasingly erratic. After two years of litigation and negotiation, the parties settled the matter without the need for a conservatorship. Doris voluntarily agreed to engage in professional mental health services and the petition was dismissed. The petitioners sought to recover their attorney fees as part of the settlement. Doris did not believe they were legally entitled to fees, but to facilitate settlement, she agreed to let the Probate Court decide whether the petitioners are entitled to fees and, if so, the amount of such fees. Petitioners filed a petition requesting the Probate Court to award them attorneys’ fees under Cal. Probate Code §2640.1. Doris opposed the petition. The Court awarded attorneys’ fees. Doris appealed the Court’s decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that petitioners could not petition for an award of attorneys’ fees because no conservator (temporary or permanent) was appointed, and that §2640.1 applied, if at all, only if a conservator is appointed.

I have pasted copies of both Probate Code §§2640.1 and 2640 below.

Takeaway. Brokken is both legally and factually specific. The case does highlight one of the risks that a petitioner takes when filing a petition for conservatorship, i.e., attorneys’ fees incurred. The petitioners would have been able to petition for the recovery of attorneys’ fees if a temporary or permanent conservator was appointed; however, even in that circumstance the Court would have had discretion over the amount of fees to award. An additional difficulty for the petitioners was that Doris would not agree to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in the settlement agreement.  

If Doris had agreed to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in the settlement agreement, and if a petition for Court approval of the settlement agreement had been filed, would the Court have approved the attorneys’ fees? We don’t know. However, and assuming that the settlement agreement did not specify the fees pursuant to §2640.1, my view is that the Court probably would have approved the settlement because the fees would have been agreed upon in the settlement agreement which is a contract.

If Doris had agreed to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in the settlement agreement, but then suit had to be brought to enforce the settlement agreement, would the Court have enforced the payment of attorneys’ fees? Again, we don’t know. However, and assuming that the settlement agreement did not specify the fees pursuant to §2640.1, again my view is that the Court probably would have enforced payment of the fees because the fees would have been agreed upon in the settlement agreement which is a contract.

There are a lot of moving parts in a conservatorship case. You will find other posts about conservatorships in this blog. Here is a link to a copy of a video about mediating conservatorship disputes and cases https://californiaestatetrust.com/2020/08/15/video-you-can-resolve-and-settle-your-convervatorship-dispute-and-case-dave-tate-esq-litigation-disputes-and-mediator-california/

Below I have pasted copies of both Probate Code §§2640.1 and 2640.

California Probate Code §2640.1

(a) If a person has petitioned for the appointment of a particular conservator and another conservator was appointed while the petition was pending, but not before the expiration of 90 days from the issuance of letters, the person who petitioned for the appointment of a conservator but was not appointed and that person’s attorney may petition the court for an order fixing and allowing compensation and reimbursement of costs, provided that the court determines that the petition was filed in the best interests of the conservatee.

(b) Notice of the hearing shall be given for the period and in the manner provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1460) of Part 1.

(c) Upon the hearing, the court shall make an order to allow both of the following:

(1) Any compensation or costs requested in the petition the court determines is just and reasonable to the person who petitioned for the appointment of a conservator but was not appointed, for his or her services rendered in connection with and to facilitate the appointment of a conservator, and costs incurred in connection therewith.

(2) Any compensation or costs requested in the petition the court determines is just and reasonable to the attorney for that person, for his or her services rendered in connection with and to facilitate the appointment of a conservator, and costs incurred in connection therewith.

Any compensation and costs allowed shall be charged to the estate of the conservatee. If a conservator of the estate is not appointed, but a conservator of the person is appointed, the compensation and costs allowed shall be ordered by the court to be paid from property belonging to the conservatee, whether held outright, in trust, or otherwise.

(d) It is the intent of the Legislature for this section to have retroactive effect.

(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 493, Sec. 28. Effective January 1, 2007.)

California Probate Code §2640

(a) At any time after the filing of the inventory and appraisal, but not before the expiration of 90 days from the issuance of letters or any other period of time as the court for good cause orders, the guardian or conservator of the estate may petition the court for an order fixing and allowing compensation to any one or more of the following:

(1) The guardian or conservator of the estate for services rendered to that time.

(2) The guardian or conservator of the person for services rendered to that time.

(3) The attorney for services rendered to that time by the attorney to the guardian or conservator of the person or estate or both.

(b) Notice of the hearing shall be given for the period and in the manner provided for in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1460) of Part 1.

(c) Upon the hearing, the court shall make an order allowing (1) any compensation requested in the petition the court determines is just and reasonable to the guardian or conservator of the estate for services rendered or to the guardian or conservator of the person for services rendered, or to both, and (2) any compensation requested in the petition the court determines is reasonable to the attorney for services rendered to the guardian or conservator of the person or estate or both. The compensation allowed to the guardian or conservator of the person, the guardian or conservator of the estate, and to the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, include compensation for services rendered before the date of the order appointing the guardian or conservator. The compensation allowed shall be charged to the estate. Legal services for which the attorney may be compensated include those services rendered by any paralegal performing legal services under the direction and supervision of an attorney. The petition or application for compensation shall set forth the hours spent and services performed by the paralegal.

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the guardian or conservator shall not be compensated from the estate for any costs or fees that the guardian or conservator incurred in unsuccessfully opposing a petition, or other request or action, made by or on behalf of the ward or conservatee, unless the court determines that the opposition was made in good faith, based on the best interests of the ward or conservatee.

(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the guardian, conservator, or attorney shall not be compensated with any government benefits program moneys unless deemed by the court as necessary to sustain the support and maintenance of the ward or conservatee, but in no event may this exceed the amount permitted by federal laws and regulations.

(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 847, Sec. 6. (SB 303) Effective January 1, 2020.)

Best to you. David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

Business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Workplace, Investigations, Other Areas

If Your Estate Or Trust Holds Difficult To Value Assets – Get Your Valuation Experts In Order (Slide)

View the above jpg, or click on the below link for a more clear view.

Best to you. David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

Business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Workplace, Investigations, Other Areas

 

Are California SNFs Prepared For Variants To The Extent Possible – See France’s Situation

Below is a link that I saw this morning, from Reuters discussing France’s increasing difficulties with the UK COVID variant. This and other variants are already in California (pursuant to news reports).

This falls under the categories of risk management, health and safety, compliance, and governance, and potentially litigation and liability, internal controls and processes, internal investigations, and mediation/mediator and dispute or conflict resolution.

It is appropriate to ask and determine: are and how are California SNFs prepared for the variants to the extent possible? And this is and will remain an ongoing issue that will develop and and change over time, and is always present under infectious controls. These are issues not just for individual SNFs to deal with, but also for government executives and legislators, regulatory agencies, SNF and health care professionals and organizations, nursing home residents, resident family members and family councils, and other people and stakeholders.

Here’s the link: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2AE0EX?__twitter_impression=true&s=09

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq.

Comments about Britney Spears’ conservatorship following the February 11 hearing . . .

As you might be aware, it is still very difficult for the public to obtain information about the proceedings in the Spears conservatorship. That fact is unusual as the general rule is that court proceedings are supposed to be, and are required to be open to the public, unless there is very good reason for some, or all, of the proceeding to not be open. Court proceedings are open to the public unless the Court makes a ruling otherwise. But, again, the presumption and legal principle that a court proceeding will be open to the public is very strong.

My understanding, based on what I have been able to read, is that following the February 11, hearing, Bessemer Trust and Jamie Spears remain as co-conservators of the estate, apparently with equal shared powers and authority. And that Jodi Montgomery remains as the conservator of the person.

This conservatorship is an ongoing saga. Current primary issues appear to include at least the following:

Will the conservatorship of the estate continue as it is, or be modified, or be terminated?

Will Jamie Spears continue as co-conservator of the estate as it is, or will his powers and authorities be modified, or will his appointment as co-conservator of the estate be terminated?

How will Bessemer Trust and Jamie Spears be able to work together as co-conservators of the estate? Will they be able to work together?

How much weight will the Court give to the requests for changes in the conservatorship that are being made by Britney Spears?

Will any of the issues and orders at the trial Court level be taken up on appeal?

And, perhaps, will the conservatorship of the person continue as it is, or be modified, or be terminated?

The following are a few additional observations:

Generally, conservators are required to communicate with the conservatee and to ask her about her wishes on important matters. However, that doesn’t bind the conservator to the conservatee’s wishes. The Court also should take the conservatee’s wishes into consideration.

Less restrictive options to the conservatorship and to the terms of the conservatorship must be taken into consideration by the Court and the parties. A conservatorship is a restriction on the rights of the conservatee.

On some issues the conservatee is entitled to a jury trial. Otherwise, the Judge has very significant authority to decide issues in a conservatorship, but those decisions must be made based on and in accordance with the applicable laws, the various burdens of poof that might apply, the standards of decision making that might apply (e.g., preponderance of the evidence or some higher standard), and the evidence.

Unless the court orders otherwise, if two co-conservators are ordered, the two co-conservators both must “concur” to exercise a power. Cal. Probate Code §2105. Other than whether either or both of the conservatorships of the estate and of the person will continue, or be modified, or be terminated, I would view the interactions between Bessemer Trust and Jamie Spears as probably being the most difficult and pressing issue. News reports indicate or suggest that there are ongoing disagreements over co-conservator scope of authority and possibly co-conservator decision making and ability to agree. Disagreements of those types could prompt the Court to make changes to its co-conservator order. See, e.g., Cal. Probate Code §§2105.5, and Chapter 9 including §2650, in addition to other Probate Code sections.

Best to you. David Tate, Esq.

Special Needs Planning Symposium (Urbatsch) – Last Chance To Register For February 18-20, 2021

I’m passing this information along because it is worthwhile – see the link below for additional specific information. For those of you who are involved in, or are interested in special needs or special needs planning, this symposium presentation provides a lot of useful and need-to-know information. But time is running out and the program is immediately upcoming. The following link should bring you directly to the symposium page for additional detailed information: https://sntsymposium.com/agenda-2021/

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq.

With Infection Control in Spotlight, $237M Program for Nursing Homes Shows Promise for COVID and Beyond – Skilled Nursing News

https://skillednursingnews.com/2021/02/with-infection-control-in-spotlight-237m-program-for-nursing-homes-shows-promise-for-covid-and-beyond/

Ethical Considerations in Estate Planning – February 11, 2021 – 12 Noon – 1 PM – Via Zoom

You might be interested in this zoom presentation and also the MCLE credits (and 1 hour for legal ethics). On February 11, from 12 Noon to 1 PM, Bradford (Brad) Hise will be presenting Ethical Considerations in Estate Planning. The presentation is for the New Attorneys Section of the Estate Planning and Probate Section of the San Mateo County Bar Association, but Brad’s presentation is for all estate planning attorneys and attendance is not limited to members.

As I helped interact with Brad for his presentation, I have seen Brad’s slides, and they are not just for “new” estate planning attorneys. In any event, “new” attorneys are defined as 1 to 10 years out, and all estate planning attorneys are subject to the same ethical duties, so you know that the talk isn’t limited to basic. Brad is a Partner and General Counsel with the Hanson Bridgett Law Firm – he knows his stuff. Below is a link to the Calendar page for the San Mateo County Bar Association – click on the presentation link for February 11 – you can also register as a non-member (I believe that there might be a small fee for non-members, but the fee is very small and the best deal in town). If the below link doesn’t work, just google the San Mateo County Bar Association and click on the Calendar page for February 11. Here is the Calendar page link https://www.smcba.org/calendar/

I hope that you will attend (virtually). Best, Dave Tate, Esq.

With All Eyes on COVID-19, Drug-Resistant Infections Crept In – Important for Nursing Homes and Elder Care

I am forwarding a Yahoo news article link (see below) – I take no credit or responsibility for the article. For nursing homes this falls in the categories of resident safety, care and infection risk management processes, liability exposure, board and committee oversight, and persons-in-charge responsibilities (CEO/President, Medical Director, Director of Nursing, etc.). Good for family councils to know, ask about, and follow up on. It’s not just COVID and the new and increasing variants.

https://news.yahoo.com/eyes-covid-19-drug-resistant-194626483.html

Best to you. David Tate, Esq.

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Investigations, Other Areas

Blogs: Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance and governance committee, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust Administration Attorney’s Potential Liability Exposure for Participating in Trustee Client’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty

It is generally known that in some limited circumstances an estate planning attorney can face potential liability exposure to the trust or will beneficiaries, such as, and depending on the facts and circumstances, if the beneficiaries can establish that the attorney did not draft the documents or a provision in the documents to say what the client told the attorney to draft. Of course, even in that circumstance the client should read the documents before signing them.

It is less often discussed that in some circumstances a trust administration attorney also can face potential liability exposure to the trust beneficiaries if the evidence establishes that the attorney participated in the trustee client’s breach of the trustee client’s fiduciary duties. These are fact specific cases in which the alleged “participation” is one of the key issues. The following are some of the relevant cases in this area, listed by more recent case first: Wolf v. Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 1030; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 1093; Atascadero v. Merrill Lunch Pierce Fenner & Smith (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 445; Morales v. Field, DeGoff, Huppert & MacGowan (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 307.

I have become more focused on this potential scenario because it is or could be present in a couple of my recent cases, and in those situations or cases I am seeing that the different trust administration attorneys handled their situations in different ways.

The trustee is the trust administration attorney’s client – the beneficiaries are not the attorney’s clients. Thus, for this scenario to apply the trust administration attorney must have done something that put her or him in the position of participating in her or his trustee client’s breach of the trustee client’s fiduciary duties. Providing advice to the trustee client is not sufficient – something more is required.

Again, these are fact specific situations. The trustee client must have in some manner breached or must be breaching her or his fiduciary duties (i.e., a past, ongoing, or present breach). Of course, the ultimate answer to that question or issue is determined only subsequently and after the fact by the trier of fact. Nevertheless, in appropriate situations the trust administration attorney should take into consideration the question or issue that or whether the trustee client potentially may have breached or is breaching or may with further action breach her or his fiduciary duties.

The question or issue for the trust administration attorney to then consider is whether the attorney has in some manner impermissibly participated or might in some manner impermissibly participate or be a participant in that breach, and, of course, what best course of action the attorney will take moving forward. For example, possible scenarios could include the trust administration attorney doing something to actively conceal the trustee client’s breach from the beneficiaries or from the Court, or the attorney actively misrepresenting the relevant facts to the beneficiaries or to the Court, or perhaps for the administration attorney to do something else that in some manner impermissibly and actively participates in the client’s breach of her or his fiduciary duties. Again, I am seeing situations or cases in which different trust administration attorneys handled their situations in different ways.

Depending on the facts and the evidence at hand, these potential situations can be difficult to evaluate because the attorney also represents and is an advocate for her or his client – but in some situations a question may arise whether the administration attorney has gone too far in that representation and advocacy? Past cases, for example, have included allegations of trust administration attorney potential liability for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, or fraud such as concealment or misrepresentation, and other claims might also exist depending on the circumstances.

You might also be interested in some of my prior posts discussing various of the rules of professional conduct and possible attorney conflicts of interest as these issues continue to be present in some of my cases – you can click on the following link for the prior posts: https://wp.me/p1wbl8-rF

Best to you. David Tate, Esq.

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Investigations, Other Areas

Blogs: Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance and governance committee, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Trust, Estate, Probate Court, Elder and Dependent Adult, and Disability Disputes and Litigation

  • Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries, beneficiaries and families; elder abuse; power of attorney disputes; elder care and nursing home abuse; conservatorships; claims to real and personal property; and other related disputes and litigation.

Business, Business-Related, and Workplace Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; Nonprofit Entities; and Governmental Entities

  • Business v. business disputes including breach of contract; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; unfair competition; licensing agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; etc.
  • Misappropriation of trade secrets.
  • M&A disputes.
  • Founder, officer, director and board, investor, shareholder, creditor, VC, control, governance, decision making, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, independence, voting, etc., disputes.
  • Buy-sell disputes.
  • Funding and share dilution disputes.
  • Accounting, lost profits, and royalty disputes and damages.
  • Insurance coverage and bad faith.
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes.
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations, Governance, and Responsibilities and Rights

  • Corporate, business, nonprofit and governmental internal investigations.
  • Board, audit committee, governance committee, and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, culture, ethics, etc.; and advising audit committees, governance committees, officers, directors, and boards.

Mediator Services and Dispute Resolution

* * * * *