Firm News & Information

October 2013

The firm is currently engaged as seller’s counsel in the sale of all outstanding stock of one of Los Angeles’ leading third party benefits administrators.

The firm has been engaged as buyer’s counsel in the acquisition of substantially all of the assets of a prominent Beverly Hills plastic surgery practice. The engagement is pursuant to the client’s goal of achieving significant growth in the Los Angeles area, with the firm also providing related strategic, due diligence, and corporate advice.

The firm has been engaged to represent an Arizona company in a federal lawsuit relating to its rights to build ‘continuation’ versions of a classic 1960s racing car. The client entered into a contract with the car’s designer in 2001 to build 100 limited edition versions of the car. However, in 2013 the designer’s heirs purported to terminate the contract as well as the client’s ancillary trademark and merchandising rights. The lawsuit is proceeding in federal court in California, and involves claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations.

A leading provider of merchant services with operations in two dozen states has appointed Heath Steinbeck as outside general counsel. Through this role, the firm supports the client’s in-house team by providing strategic advice and support, acting as lead litigation counsel in lawsuits across the nation, and assisting the company’s development of internal practices and procedures design to enhance productivity and minimize risk.

The firm is currently engaged as seller’s counsel in the sale of all outstanding stock of one of Los Angeles’ leading third party benefits administrators.

A wireless communications company based in Canada engaged the firm to represent it in an arbitration brought by a leading U.S. manufacturer of irrigation products. The claimant was represented by one of the nation’s leading law firms, and the claims at issue included breach of contract and fraud, and disputes over the technology platform developed in the course of the parties’ development work.

The firm was engaged to defend the former CEO of a Singapore technology company in a complex fraud action filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The company, which is in liquidation, alleged that the CEO misappropriated more than $15 million in corporate assets by transferring funds to entities controlled by his wife and other affiliates. After filing a demurrer that exposed severe weaknesses in the plaintiff’s case theory, the client was able to negotiate a highly-favored settlement amounting to considerably less than ‘nuisance value’ and the action settled without either side engaging in discovery.

Heath Steinbeck prevailed in successive arbitrations brought by the Screen Actors Guild against its clients, a film production company and an affiliate distributor. SAG sought awards of $250,000 and $350,000, respectively, alleging that the clients owed, in connection with two motion pictures, ‘step-up’ compensation and residuals under SAG’s collective bargaining agreement. Following contested hearings and the submission of closing briefs, the arbitrator entered successive written rulings which adopted all of the arguments advanced by Heath Steinbeck, dismissed all of SAG’s claims, and ruled that SAG was not entitled to any recovery from our clients.

The firm was engaged as counsel on behalf of a real estate developer in a fraud case arising out of a $3.5 million residence in Beverly Hills. The action involved claims against the developer of the property, the sellers, and the brokers representing the seller. We secured a favorable cash recovery for our client, as well as a resolution of all counter-claims, through mediation.

Heath Steinbeck was retained to defend claims for copyright infringement and breach of contract brought against a distributor of Bengali-language motion pictures. Upon retention, we secured the dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiff’s key copyright, with the plaintiff agreeing to dismiss the claim after we exposed major flaws in its case theory. The firm went on the offensive, filing cross-claims for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, and engaging in aggressive investigation and discovery that confirmed the viability of the client’s fraud claim. The client is now seeking an award of punitive damages against the plaintiff.