NOTE: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF UNIQUE FACTORS AND DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT SIMILAR RESULTS FOR FUTURE CASES.
FH+H Partner Tom Craig assisted a closely held corporate client to structure its internal documents for succession planning. The current ownership of a mid-sized corporation sought to create a structure that would allow the current owners to pass the value they had built in their company on to the next generation, while simultaneously providing for a smooth transition and continuous operation of the company. Tom Craig assisted in drafting and structuring a shareholder agreement and related documents that allowed for the desired wealth transfer without disrupting the operation or control of the company.
The FH+H Litigation + Investigations Team, led by Partner Milt Johns, successfully argued on behalf of a commercial client before an American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitrator. The client brought a claim in arbitration against a prime contractor for failure to pay invoices. The prime contractor lodged a six figure counterclaim against the client. After a one-day hearing (hosted at the FH+H Woodbridge office), the counterclaim against the FH+H client was completely dismissed, and the FH+H client received a 5 figure award for its unpaid invoices.
The FH+H Government Contracts Team, lead by Partner Milt Johns, filed a bid protest complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on behalf of a Department of Defense government contracts client. Based on the filing and the results of the initial status conference the Government agency rescinded a contract award to our client's competitor and agreed to reevaluate all proposals.
This month, FH+H's Employment Law Team successfully negotiated a six-figure release for a corporate executive separating from a healthcare entity.
Partner Craig Guthery and the FH+H Litigation Team represented a client in an employee and intellectual property dispute. The plaintiff alleged that our client assisted a former employee of a third party in violating their non-competition agreement with the plaintiff, tortiously interfered with that agreement and received trade secrets from the former employee. Mr. Guthery facilitated an early settlement of the dispute to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, avoiding an anticipated lengthy and expensive litigation.
FH+H Attorneys Vindicate Rights of Retired Soldier in Case Challenging Denial of Benefits Under the Post 9/11 G.I. BillSeptember 21, 2015
Recently, FH+H Attorneys, led by Managing Partner Tom Craig and Partner Jack White, helped a retired U.S. Army general win a case involving the denial of educational benefits under the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill. Our client was LTG N. Ross Thompson, III, USA, Ret., who previously served with FH+H Senior Counsel Dean G. Popps. Subsequent to his retirement, Gen. Thompson learned that the Army had failed to provide him with the information and individualized counseling about his benefits under the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, as was required by a U.S. Department of Defense Directive-Type Memorandum. Because the Army failed to provide him with this information and counseling, including the requirement to transfer his education benefits to his children while still on active duty and prior to his retirement, Gen. Thompson was allowed to retire without properly transferring his benefits, and without any notice of the consequences.
After speaking with various individuals and organizations within the Army, Gen. Thompson filed a request with the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”) to correct his military records to show that he had properly transferred his benefits. The ABCMR refused to correct Gen. Thompson's military record.
Consequently, FH+H attorneys filed suit in federal court. FH+H attorneys persuade the Court that the mistakes made by the Army in Gen. Thompson’s case, including the violation of his right to receive proper notice about failing to properly transfer his benefits, were so significant that they required correction by the Court.
The Court agreed with Gen. Thompson and issued an order directing the ABCMR to reconsider its denial of Gen. Thompson’s request. In its opinion, the Court specifically noted that the ABCMR acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied Gen. Thompson’s request to correct his military records, and that the denial was not supported by competent evidence appearing in the record.
FH+H Employment Law attorneys, led by Partner Jack White, represented local employers in matters involving the defense of employment discrimination claims being investigated by the EEOC and the D.C. Office of Human Rights (DCOHR). Last month, Mr. White appeared in person and defended FH+H's client (an area employer) during on-site employee interviews conducted by EEOC investigators, and an FH+H Senior Staff Attorney appeared and defended another area employer during telephone interviews with our client’s managerial employees conducted by a DCOHR investigator.
Recently, FH+H's Employment Law team successfully represented an area employer in connection with a Charge of Discrimination (alleging age discrimination and retaliation) filed by a former employee with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and against our client and a federal agency as co-employers. In this case, our client was merely a provider of personnel to the agency, which had day-to-day operational and supervisory control over the employee. As a direct result of FH+H's efforts, the EEOC dismissed the Charge and issued a 90-day right to sue letter.
Last month, FH+H attorneys, led by Managing Partner Tom Craig, represented a deposition witness in a hotly-contested Fair Labor Standards Act case. FH+H attorneys determined that some documents at issue involved communications between the plaintiff, his lawyers and our client, but were nonetheless subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Recognizing our professional obligations to our client, to third parties in litigation, and to the Court, FH+H attorneys contacted both parties, filed timely objections, and obtained a hearing before turning over these documents. FH+H attorneys were thereby able to protect not only our client’s rights, but also the rights of a third party, consistent with our core values of both serving our clients, and acting with integrity within our system of justice.
A firm client was notified that it had been awarded a contract by a government agency. Subsequently, another competitor informally complained to the awarding agency that our client did not have the appropriate facility security clearance (FCL). The agency then revoked the award to our client, and announced that our client could not win, and the agency would award the contract to another firm.
FH+H's GovCon practice group, lead by partner Milt Johns, protested on the basis that the client was fully compliant with the RFP requirements (even though they were ambiguous about when the client needed to have the FCL), and that the agency had engaged in inappropriate discussions with a competitor. As a result, the agency cancelled the solicitation, which prevented our client's competitor from getting the 3 year contract award, and will allow our client to compete when the solicitation is reissued. As a aside note, during the pendency of the protest, our client was able to clear up the situation with its facility clearance and now should have no issues going forward as to whether it holds the correct clearance or not.