Summary:

Our client, who was involved in litigation for an estate, received a low-ball offer from a private equity firm he was suing on behalf of the estate. The offer was based on what our client believed was a false representation of the amount of the sale of a particular company. We were able to research the sale and provide the actual amount paid for the company, which was much higher than that alleged by the private equity firm. Our client turned down the offer and later prevailed in the litigation, receiving a much larger monetary award than what was offered. was an uproar by residents in a local city when approximately 100 trees were cut without any public notice. We were hired by the city council to investigate why this large tree removal on vacant land happened without public notice and without complying with the Department of Toxic Substance Control's requirements for such work on contaminated property.

The Story:

Our client, an investor in litigation involving an estate, was denied access to the financial records and resources of a British Virgin Island (BVI) domiciled corporation that had been part of the estate. He knew that the company had been sold in a private sale to a private equity firm. The equity firm was attempting to settle the litigation by making a di minimis offer to our client to end the litigation, asserting that the sale was only for $25 million and that the company did not have enough resources to offer our client more.

 

Our client did not believe that the sale was only for $25 million. He asked us to attempt to find the specific details of the sale and how much it really sold for. This was a rush job since our client needed to respond to the private equity firm's offer by the deadline they had given him.

 

We were able to establish that the sale had been handled through investment bankers acting for the private equity firm and that the transfer of assets to complete the sale was $575 million, in a package consisting of cash, debt and stock transfers, significantly more than our client had been told. We were able to provide our client with the name of the institutions that facilitated the transfers so he would be able to subpoena the institutions to verify the results of our investigation.

 

After receiving our report, our client turned the di minimis offer down. In the ongoing litigation in the BVI, he prevailed, obtaining a significantly larger monetary award.