In an opinion officially released on August 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a default judgment obtained by Z&Z attorneys Matthew Beatman, James Moriarty, and John Cesaroni to recover certain fraudulent transfers for their client. In Mirlis v. Greer, No. 21-202, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22938 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2023), the. . .
In an opinion officially released on February 14, 2023, Z&Z attorneys Aaron Romney and John Cesaroni successfully obtained the reversal of a trial court decision finding that Z&Z’s client had been paid in full on certain contracts. In Circulent, Inc. v. The Hatch and Bailey Company, AC 45277 (see PDF of decision below), the Connecticut Appellate Court agreed. . .
On January 17, 2023, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Jed Horwitt, Receiver v. Flatiron Partners, LP, and Neila Fortino, Case Nos. 21-2245 and 21-2247, (see PDF below), agreeing with the arguments of Z&Z attorneys Stephen M. Kindseth and James M. Moriarty that the district court had correctly applied. . .
On January 26, 2023, Eastern Computer Exchange, Inc. voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its claims alleging breach of restrictive covenants against clients represented by Z&Z Attorney James M. Moriarty and attorneys Robert S. Freidman, Joshua Schlenger, and Meghan M. Stuer of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
The dismissal was obtained after the action was removed to federal district court and an. . .
On January 17, 2023, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Jed Horwitt, Receiver v. Flatiron Partners, LP, and Neila Fortino, Case Nos. 21-2245 and 21-2247, (see PDF below), agreeing with the arguments of Z&Z Attorneys Stephen M. Kindseth and James M. Moriarty that the district court had correctly applied the Rising. . .
On May 24, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the arguments presented by Z&Z Attorneys Eric A. Henzy and Christopher H. Blau, and held that a 2017 law, which imposed dramatically higher fees on Chapter 11 debtors in every state except North Carolina and Alabama, violated the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy. . .