NOTE: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF UNIQUE FACTORS AND DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT SIMILAR RESULTS FOR FUTURE CASES.
FH+H partner Craig Guthery 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. Managing partner 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.
FH+H Partner Milt Johns and Associate Marlena Ewald worked with a client to successfully obtain its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certification. The client, a government contractor, had applied and been denied DBE status by the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity (DSBSD). After a successful appeal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the client was denied once again by the DSBSD on remand. FH+H submitted a reconsideration letter and packet to DSBSD which strongly advocated on the client’s behalf. Within a couple weeks of the submission, the client received notification from DSBSD that it had been granted its well-deserved DBE certification.
The FH+H Government Contracts Team, led by Partner Milt Johns, filed a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on behalf of a Department of Defense government contracts client. The client was a long standing incumbent on a large, multimillion dollar national security contract. During the proposal evaluation process for the re-compete of the contract, the client was notified by the agency that they were eliminated from the competitive range of offerors for the proposal. The FH+H Government Contracts Team filed a protest at the GAO on behalf of the client. Based on the filing, the Government agency took corrective action and rescinded the notification of elimination, returning the client to the competition.
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.