Legal Services

Commercial Litigation

The hallmark of Archer’s Commercial Litigation attorneys is aggressive representation of our clients’ interests. But we go one step further. Unlike many law firms, our commercial litigators encourage open communication and teamwork with our clients, enabling us to tailor our representation to each client’s business goals and objectives. In short, our commercial litigation lawyers find practical, real-world solutions for our clients.

Commercial Litigation Lawyers

With more than thirty experienced lawyers, the commercial litigation group is the largest practice area in our firm. Our attorneys practice in state and federal trial courts around the country and have substantial experience as appellate advocates in both state and federal appeals courts.

A Win-Win Attitude

Our commercial litigators include many experienced trial attorneys, prepared to litigate a case from inception through trial and on to appeal if necessary. But our experience is not limited to trials and appeals. Our regional commercial litigation lawyers also have significant experience with such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as mediation, arbitration and mini-trials. Regardless of the forum, our commercial litigation lawyers have the experience necessary to represent our clients zealously and effectively whether local to the region or across the country.

Creating a Partnership with Our Clients

Business is dynamic, and as a result, goals may change during the litigation process. Our attorneys promote a climate of open communication and shared information with our clients. We believe that a well-informed team can better assess available options, consider how these options fit with business goals, and choose the strategy best suited to each client’s objectives.

Effective Solutions to Unique Problems

As problem solvers, our commercial litigation lawyers strive to gain an understanding of the client’s industry and the general business climate. We partner with in-house counsel and business decision makers to produce a well-informed team with a common goal. Together, this team defines both the goal and the most effective and efficient strategy for reaching that goal.

Cost is Always a Consideration

Finding a solution can be meaningless without considering the cost of the solution. We take pride in developing the most efficient and cost-effective solutions for our clients. Never a firm to follow a “one size fits all” philosophy, we employ a litigation model that carefully matches the right lawyers and paralegals to each case. The result: a case staffed to meet both the demands of the litigation and the business considerations of each client.

Our Clients

Our clients range from individuals and small businesses to the world’s largest corporations. Regardless of the size of the client or the type of matter, we pledge the same commitment: to represent our clients’ interests aggressively while working together to find the best solution for our clients.

Our attorneys have considerable experience in many types of litigation, including:

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (arbitration, mediation, mini-trials)
  • Antitrust and Distribution
  • Appellate Practice
  • Breach of Contract
  • Class Actions
  • Commercial Transactions
  • Computer and High Technology
  • Construction
  • Consumer Fraud
  • Employee Benefits/ERISA
  • Fiduciary Duties
  • First Amendment Rights
  • Franchise
  • Healthcare
  • Insurance
  • Intellectual Property
  • Internet Law
  • Media Law
  • Product Disparagement and Commercial Libel
  • Real Estate
  • Restrictive Covenants/Non-Compete Agreements
  • RICO
  • Shareholder and Partnership Disputes
  • Temporary Restraining Orders and Injunctions
  • Trade Secrets
  • Unfair Competition and Business Torts

 

 

 

 

 

Experience

EXPERIENCED COMMERCIAL LITIGATION LAWYERS

  • In re Elec. Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 389, (D.N.J. 2006) (participated as liaison counsel in the defense of antitrust claims involving the carbon brush industry; assisted in securing court approval of class action settlement).
  • Webb v. Witt, 876 A.2d 858, (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (successfully obtained ruling affirming dismissal of insured physician’s third-party claim against medical malpractice insurance carrier seeking to override the negotiated settlement of a malpractice claim).
  • Balthazar v. Atlantic City Medical Center, 279 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.N.J. 2003), aff’d, 137 Fed. Appx. 482, (3d Cir. 2005) (obtained the imposition of sanctions against counsel for the assertion of RICO and litigation fraud claims against physicians arising out of previously dismissed medical malpractice claims and argued successfully for the affirmance of the District Court’s dismissal of the federal claims).
  • Our New Jersey commercial litigation lawyers handled a wide range of matters, including shareholder and partnership disputes, construction litigation, eminent domain/ condemnation proceedings and contract disputes.
  • Real estate actions, corporate dissolution suits, shareholder derivative actions, insurance coverage disputes, construction law, and general contract and tort issues.
  • Koken v. Reliance Insurance Co., 846 A.2d 778 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (denial of petition for injunctive relief and relief from stay to compel liquidator to submit to arbitration of setoff claim involving insurers and insolvent insurer under reinsurance treaties).
  • Handled a wide variety of complex commercial litigation matters involving antitrust laws, RICO, defense of corporate officers and directors, derivative claims, and shareholder, real estate, franchise, construction and securities disputes.
  • Securing a preliminary injunction on behalf of the City of Philadelphia against another governmental agency from carrying out discriminatory elements of a fare plan and the denial of preliminary injunction in a civil rights suit, which was dismissed with prejudice, alleging racial discrimination in the implementation of certain regulations of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code.
  • Represented corporate and individual clients on a variety of issues related to shareholder derivative actions, real estate, commercial law, employment law, environmental law, mortgage and tax foreclosure, construction and lien law.
  • Document and ESI preservation and retention issues, negotiating the parameters of electronic discovery, the drafting of electronic discovery orders, confidentiality agreements, and protective orders, and establishing effective review protocol.
  • Successfully taking premises liability matters to trial, defending individuals and self-insured corporations in several New Jersey counties.
  • Litigating and mediating shareholder disputes, involving NJ corporations and limited liability companies.
  • Exxon, First Citizens Bank, PSE&G, Major League Baseball Players Association, Sonoco Corp., Contaminant Control Group., Reade Manufacturing Corp., Magnesium Elektron Corp., Denton Vacuum, Inc., Fisher-Price, Gulf Oil, and APCO Petroleum Corp,  – Represent these clients in various insolvency and litigation matters.
  • Complex commercial litigation matters including: complex business litigation; ERISA litigation and other employee benefit matters; corporate governance and shareholder rights litigation; shareholder and partnership disputes; securities litigation; protection of trade secrets and unfair competition; tort and fraud class action litigation; breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and RICO litigation; consumer fraud actions; breach of contract litigation; and complex environmental matters.
  • Represented Russian company in the Chancery Court of Delaware against claims of breach of aircraft purchase agreement.
  • Our firm’s commercial litigation lawyers successfully defended our client, an air travel services company, in the District of New Jersey against claim of breach of aircraft lease agreement.
  • Successfully prosecuted fiduciary duty and shareholder oppression claims for managing partner of an accounting firm.
  • Successfully defended Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliate against antitrust case brought by a regional healthcare system in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
  • Successfully defended client at trial in a case involving a contract dispute that arose from the valuation and sale of a close corporation;
  • Successfully obtained a dismissal on behalf of a law firm against claims of defamation for both slander and libel;
  • Successfully obtained a dismissal of all claims brought by alleged creditor who was seeking to collect a debt that was incurred as a result of identity theft;
  • Successfully negotiated a settlement on behalf of a supplier alleged to have supplied the wrong product to a multi-million dollar construction project;
  • Successfully obtained temporary restraining order preventing former employee from utilizing her employer’s trade secrets.
  • United States ex rel. Landau v. Lucasti, 680 F.Supp.2d 659 (D.N.J. 2010) (obtained partial summary judgment which led to a settlement in favor of a qui tam plaintiff. The Opinion of the Court resolved the meaning and applicability of the Medicare regulations which outline the requirements for services “incident to” the services of a physician).
  • In re: Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 2001.
  • Berkshire Equities v. Montaquiza, 346 N.J. Super. 310 (App. Div. 2002).
  • Anderson v. Cagle Foods JV, LLC, 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 41747 (M.D.Ga. Dec. 8, 2005), aff’d, 488 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied,128 S.Ct. 2902 (2008)
  •  Abdullah v. Equity Group-Georgia Div., LLC, 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 74721 (M.D.Ga. Oct. 12, 2006), aff’d sub nom, Albritton v. Cagle’s Inc., 508 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2007), reh’g en banc denied, 261 Fed. Appx. 280 (11th Cir. 2008)
  • Burks v. Equity Group-Eufaula Div., LLC, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (M.D. Ala. 2008)
  • Adkins v. Cagle Foods JV, LLC, 411 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2005)
  • Wheeler v. Cagle Foods JV, LLC, 148 Fed. Appx. 760; 2005 U.S.App.LEXIS 10870 (11th Cir. June 8, 2005)
  • Mims v. Cagle Foods JV, LLC, 148 Fed. Appx. 762; 2005 U.S.App.LEXIS 11579 (11th Cir. June 15, 2005)
  • Glass v. Cagle’s Inc., et al, 143 Fed.Appx. 300, 2005 U.S.App.LEXIS 20488 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2005), rehearing en banc denied, 2005 U.S.App.LEXIS 23491 (11th Cir. June 1, 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1061 (Dec. 5, 2005 ).
  • County of Del. v. J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Inc., 830 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003), appeal granted, 854 A.2d 968, affd without opinion, 873 A.2d 1285 (Pa. 2005)
  • The representation of a major health care provider in the defense of class action claims alleging that it had unlawfully accumulated over $500 million in excess surpluses;
  • The representation of a major oil distributor in connection with administrative demands for information and damage claims brought by governmental agencies arising out of the environmental remediation of two of the largest refinery sites in New Jersey;
  • The successful defense, in a two-week jury trial, of the subsidiary of one of the country’s largest property and casualty insurance companies against claims for approximately $2 million in damages arising for a failed real estate transaction;
  • The successful representation of a software developer in a three-week commercial arbitration proceeding arising from the installation of an multi-million dollar, enterprise-wide software system at a major insurance company;
  • Our commercial litigation lawyers successfully defended the majority shareholders of a major New Jersey company against claims of minority shareholder “oppression,” as a result of a 13-week non-jury trial.

 

People

RELATED BLOG POSTS

09.28.2017 / PRESS RELEASE

Steven Mignogna a Featured Speaker at NJICLE Fiduciary Litigation Update Annual Forum

10.19.2017 / ARTICLES

LETTER: Elder care bureaucratic costs will hurt seniors

10.06.2017 / EVENTS AND SEMINARS

CLE and Networking Luncheon

View All