Dowd Bennett » Commercial Litigation

Dowd Bennett Obtains $7,626,744 Verdict for Monsanto Company

admin — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:33:45 +0000

Dowd Bennett recently represented Monsanto Company at trial in the matter of Monsanto Company v. ConocoPhillips Company, 08SL-CC 02002. The matter involved the breach of a supply agreement and was tried for nine days in St. Louis County Circuit Court. On June 28, 2010, following an hour and a half of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Monsanto Company in the amount of $7, 626, 744, which is exactly the amount that Monsanto Company was seeking in damages. The Dowd Bennett trial team was comprised of Jim Bennett, Gabe Gore, Jen Kingston and Nancy Carson, but as always at Dowd Bennett, it was a total firm effort. We are very pleased to have been able to obtain this great result for our valued client.

View the Verdict Form:

Monsanto Verdict Form (PDF)

View Related News:

July 11, 2010 Monsanto wins verdict against ConocoPhillips
July 4, 2010 Monsanto gets $7.6 million verdict against Conoco

Federal Suit Dismissed Against Corporate Officer Represented by Dowd Bennett

admin — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:27:00 +0000

On March 24, 2010, a federal lawsuit against a corporate officer represented by Dowd Bennett attorneys Ed Dowd and John Comerford was dismissed upon motion of the defendants. The suit alleged that Dowd Bennett’s client and other defendants breached their fiduciary duties in administering an ERISA plan. The case involved an analysis of the defendants’ fiduciary status under ERISA, the Moench presumption of prudence in the ERISA context, and the safe harbor provided by section 404(c) of ERISA. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims, holding that the complaint’s allegations failed to sufficiently allege that any of the defendants deceived or attempted to deceive the Plan participants and beneficiaries. The Court also held that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a breach of the duty of loyalty, and failed to establish a basis for vicarious breach of fiduciary duty claims against any of the defendants.

The case is Crocker v. KV Pharmaceutical Co. et al., 2010 WL 1257671 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 24, 2010). The District Court’s Order of Dismissal and Memorandum and Order are available below.

View the Order of Dismissal and Memorandum and Order:

March 24, 2010 Order of Dismissal (PDF)
March 24, 2010 Memorandum and Order of Dismissal (PDF)

Summary Judgment Win in Age Discrimination Case Affirmed on Appeal

admin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:27:35 +0000

On March 2, 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Dowd Bennett’s national retailer client. The plaintiff, a former employee, claimed age discrimination and sought unspecified damages. Jennifer Aspinall and Erika Anderson handled the litigation and briefing on appeal. This victory represents another success in a long line of favorable dispositions Dowd Bennett has achieved for its retailer client through dispositive motions practice.

View Eighth Circuit Opinion and District Court Order:

March 2, 2010 Eighth Circuit Opinion (PDF)
June 23, 2009 District Court Order Granting Summary Judgment (PDF)

Dowd Bennett Wins Summary Judgment for Employer in Americans with Disabilities Act Case

admin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:01:51 +0000

Dowd Bennett successfully defended a retail employer in a case filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. After partially granting Dowd Bennett’s motion to dismiss and dismissing all state claims against the employer, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri later granted summary judgment to the employer on October 21, 2009. The court concluded that the action taken by the employer was not as a result of a disability of the Plaintiff and further concluded that the undisputed, material evidence demonstrated that Plaintiff was not disabled, as defined by the ADA.

View District Court Order of Dismissal and Grant of Summary Judgment:

October 21, 2009 District Court Order Granting Summary Judgment (PDF)
December 4, 2008 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims (PDF)

View related news:

October 23, 2009 Judge: Monkey is Not a Service Animal
October 23, 2009 ‘Devastating’ Ruling for Woman

Contos v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.

admin — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:44:36 +0000

After successfully removing the lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Missouri against its client, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., to federal court, Dowd Bennett prevailed on its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri retained jurisdiction of the case on the basis of ERISA preemption and proceeded to dismissed each of plaintiff’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, common law negligence, and breach of contract.

View District Court Order and Opinion:

September 25, 2009 District Court Order of Dismissal and Memorandum Opinion (PDF)

Ginsburg et al. v. InBev et al.

admin — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:13:01 +0000

Dowd Bennett prevailed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted judgment on the pleadings to InBev, thereby denying a preliminary injunction that sought to stop InBev’s purchase of Anheuser-Busch.

View District Court Order and Memorandum Opinion:

August 3, 2009 District Court Order Denying Preliminary Injunction and Granting Judgment to InBev (PDF)

View related news:

April 14, 2010 Appeal of District Court’s Dismissal of Case against InBev Heard by Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
July 10, 2008 King of Beers Sees Red Over InBev’s Hostile Intentions

Dubinsky et al. v. Mermart, LLC

admin — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:41:35 +0000

After successfully removing the lawsuit from Missouri Circuit Court in the City of St. Louis to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Dowd Bennett prevailed on its motion to dismiss a subordinate bondholder action against its client, Mermart LLC. In its April, 2009 Order of Dismissal, the District Court agreed with Mermart’s position that many of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred because plaintiffs had not fulfilled the prerequisite of obtaining the consent of the senior mortgagees before bringing an enforcement action. The District Court also found Plaintiffs’ fraud and negligence claims to be barred by the economic loss doctrine. In February, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order of dismissal in all respects.

View District Court Order of Dismissal and Appellate Court Decision Affirming Dismissal:

April 15, 2009 District Court Order of Dismissal and Memorandum Opinion (PDF)
February 10, 2010 Appellate Decision Affirming Dismissal by District Court (PDF)

Zoltek Inc. et al. v. Structural Polymer Group Ltd.

admin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:15:12 +0000

After successfully removing the lawsuit filed in state court by Zoltek against Dowd Bennett client Structural Polymer Group, Ltd., the firm successfully moved in federal court to dismiss all of Zoltek’s claims. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Zoltek’s breach of contract and fraud claims in November, 2008. Zoltek’s appeal of the dismissal of its fraud claim was denied when in January, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order of dismissal.

View District Court Order and Appellate Court Judgment:

November 13, 2008 District Court Order of Dismissal and Memorandum Opinion (PDF)
January 26, 2010 Court of Appeals Judgment Affirming Dismissal (PDF)

The Crawford Group, Inc. v. Holekamp

admin — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:14:23 +0000

Dowd Bennett lawyers prevailed on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which upheld an arbitration award of $20.7 million to William Holekamp, a former executive of Enterprise Rent-a-Car. The arbitration award resulted from an improperly low valuation of the stock options received by Holekamp.

View District Court Judgment and Court of Appeals Published Opinion:

September, 13 2007 District Court Judgment (PDF)
October 6, 2008 Judgment and Opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 543 F.3d 971 (PDF)