NOTE: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF UNIQUE FACTORS AND DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT SIMILAR RESULTS FOR FUTURE CASES.
FH+H litigated successfully on behalf of a small business after an individual posted defamatory statements about the company as Google, Yelp, and Facebook reviews. Most of the reviews were swiftly removed. Where defamatory reviews were not removed, FH+H successfully brought suit and the client was awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
After the insulting, false reviews were posted, the company reached out to the individual, who had never been a customer of its company, asking them to remove the statements, but the individual would not comply.
FH+H attorneys, including Partner Milt Johns and Associate Marzia Momen, filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of the company, arguing that the individual’s false reviews harmed the business’ reputation, would deter customers from using the business’ services, and hurt the business’ ability to hire employees.
The individual eventually admitted the statements they had posted were false, and a jury returned to FH+H’s client a five-figure award for compensatory and punitive damages.
FH+H Partner Kevin Byrnes and Senior Associate Samuel Adelmann successfully mediated the resolution of a dispute involving LLC members who had a falling out over the operation of a restaurant that had earned a national award for the authenticity of its food and decor.
In what could have been a contorted and prolonged case between former business partners, Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Adelmann were able to secure a favorable settlement in one day that ended an acrimonious dispute and allowed the litigants to go their separate ways while avoiding the time and expense of a protracted trial that could have jeopardized the continuity of the business. Instead, the parties concluded on a buyout that left the reputation and standing of the business intact, while allowing the minority member to have their interest purchased at an amount agreeable to them.
Both the mediator and the clients expressed gratitude for the efforts of FH+H lawyers. The managing members immediately commented that they felt a heavy burden had been lifted and were happy to put the matter behind them.
FH+H's Litigation team routinely handles similar business disputes and litigation before courts, mediators, and arbitrators in both state and federal court. Learn more about the team's capabilities here.
FH+H Partner Craig Guthery recently assisted a software developer in collecting payment for custom work performed after the client’s customer put off paying for nearly a year.
FH+H’s client assigned its developers to the customer under a master services agreement that required annual payments, but the customer had delayed the most recent payment for nearly a year — a few weeks at a time — using a variety of excuses.
The customer made the overdue payment after a single demand letter from Mr. Guthery, which saved our client from incurring any litigation fees or costs in resolving the dispute.
In the breach of contract action, the opposing party sought to have a judgement entered against a client of the firm without the benefit of a trial. The court found that material facts were still in dispute in the case, and the motion for summary judgment was denied.
A government contracting client received a CPARS rating from a customer that was unsatisfactory in several areas. FH+H assisted the client in crafting a response to the contracting officer, challenging these ratings and providing legal and factual basis to change the ratings.
As a result, the client's government customer changed the ratings in three of the four areas, and the client no longer had any unsatisfactory ratings in any category.
The FH+H Government Contracts team, including Partner Milt Johns and Associate Rachel Leahey, successfully prosecuted a bid protest for a client that resulted in the agency taking voluntary corrective action that provided the possibility of additional competition for the work.
The agency agreed to voluntarily terminate a blanket purchase agreement issued on a sole source basis. The termination came little more than one month of its issuance, and after only a fraction of the value of the BPA had been spent on the awardee. The agency also agreed to reconsider its acquisition strategy and issue a revised solicitation.
The protest succeeded due to persuasive argument that in preparing its limited source justification in support of the award, the agency failed to comply with the relevant Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
FH+H attorneys, including Partner Jennifer Huber and Senior Associate Marlena Ewald, helped close a multi-million dollar Other Transaction Agreement for a unique prototype project with the U.S. Government.
Other Transaction Agreement, or Other Transaction Authority, (OTA) contracts give the Department of Defense the ability to move forward with certain prototype and research projects without going through the traditional acquisition process, which can take years to complete. 10 U.S.C. § 2371b.
“Instead of undergoing a more rigid procurement process with the potential risk of a protest, OTAs allow for a much quicker and flexible avenue of procurement,” Ms. Huber said. “Contractors are able to innovate and create with today’s technology, not the technology of years ago when the solicitation process was started.”
The FH+H Government Contracts team is able to guide contractors through the applicable rules and regulations related to OTAs and other contracts in order to enable corporate success. Read about the group here.
The FH+H Government Contracts team, including Partner Milt Johns and Associate Rachel Leahey, successfully prosecuted a bid protest for a client that resulted in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustaining the protest and recommending that the Agency award a contract to the client and pay the client's attorneys' fees.
Bringing the protest required careful argument interpreting a key passage of the solicitation. As the GAO found, the solicitation interpretation offered by the Agency was "not unreasonable." Decision, p.6.
However, as the GAO also recognized, we "advance[d] an alternative interpretation of the solicitation" on behalf of our client that the GAO also found to be "reasonable." Id. This was a critical finding, as it was only by successfully countering the Agency's solicitation interpretation that the GAO ultimately decided in favor of our client.
The GAO's decision is public and available for download here.
FH+H recently helped a defense contractor export sensitive defense articles to the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region.
The contractor was selected by a strategic U.S. ally to provide such articles and required assistance with navigating the regulatory hurdles that it faced.
Leveraging its experience and relationships in the export compliance arena, FH+H coordinated with the Department of State and the Department of Defense to help ensure that an export license was issued, and that the license's provisos both protected U.S. national security interests and allowed FH+H's client to satisfy its contractual obligations overseas.
"U.S. hardware and services remain in high demand across the Middle East and North Africa," FH+H International Trade + Transactions Partner Adam Munitz said. "And we will always utilize every skill we have to expedite their delivery and grow our clients' international footprints, all while preserving their compliance with U.S. laws and regulations."